House of Commons
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I wish to say something about the reports of behaviour in the Division Lobbies last night. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms and other senior officials to investigate the incident and report back to me. I will then update the House.
I remind Members that the behaviour code applies to them as well as to other members of our parliamentary community. This gives me another opportunity to talk about the kind of House that I want to see, and that I believe the vast majority of MPs also want to see. I want this to be a House in which—while we might have very strong political disagreements—we treat each other courteously and with respect, and we should show the same courtesy and respect to those who work with and for us. To that end, I will be meeting senior party representatives to seek an agreed position that behaviour such as that described last night is unacceptable in all circumstances.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
We will lead the world in this area, and we will bring back the Online Safety Bill imminently, ensuring that social media platforms finally prioritise protecting children, remove abhorrent illegal content quickly—including hate crimes—and keep their promises to their own users.
Afzal Khan
Online hate speech affects all and aims to sow division, yet the Government are making painfully slow progress in making online spaces less toxic. Home Office figures reveal a sharp increase in far-right activity, with Muslim and Jewish communities facing the largest number of hate crimes in the UK year after year. Along with other parliamentary colleagues, I suffer online abuse on a regular basis. What steps will the Minister take to tackle Islamophobia and antisemitism online?
Michelle Donelan
Crimes such as those that the hon. Member has mentioned, including hate crimes, are not acceptable on any platform. As I have said, we will bring back the Online Safety Bill imminently. I cannot announce House business here today, but I can assure all Members that the Bill will be coming back very shortly. I share his concerns, as I am sure do all Members.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Let me first welcome the Secretary of State to her place, and welcome, too, the refreshing degree of engagement with the Select Committee that is now under way. I also welcome her assurance that she will be strengthening the Online Safety Bill’s protections for children, but there has been speculation, following previous comments, that she will be reviewing the duties of care for adults relating to so-called “legal but harmful content”. Can she clarify what changes she is minded to make in relation to such content?
Michelle Donelan
We will be coming back to the House with this in due course, and the Bill will be coming back imminently. This is my key priority—I cannot stress that enough. Protecting children should be the fundamental responsibility of this House, and we will strengthen the provisions for children. I have given that assurance directly to Ian Russell, and I give it again now in the House. We are, however, rebalancing elements for adults’ freedom of speech, while also holding social media companies to account so that they cannot treat different races and religions differently, contrary to their own terms and conditions. Fundamentally, the Bill must be about ensuring that we are protecting children, and we will be bringing it back to the House as soon as possible.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Last weekend there was yet another case of vile online racist abuse being hurled at a professional footballer, on this occasion the Brentford striker Ivan Toney. Ironically, tomorrow we will all come together to recognise Show Racism the Red Card day. If the Government are at all serious about keeping people safe online, it is vital for those at the top of these multimillion-pound social media companies to be held personally accountable. The Online Safety Bill is our opportunity to do better. Can the Minister therefore tell us exactly why the Government have failed to introduce personal criminal liability measures for senior leaders who have fallen short on their statutory duty to protect us online?
Michelle Donelan
I think it is about time the Opposition remembered that it is this Government who are introducing the Online Safety Bill. It is this Government who committed themselves to it in our manifesto. As I have already told Opposition Members, we will bring it back imminently. I am sure you agree, Mr Speaker, that it would not be proper for me to announce House business here today, but I can assure the hon. Member that this is my top priority. We will be coming back with the Bill shortly. I mean what I say, and I will do what I say.
Mr Speaker
I now call the Scottish National party spokesperson, John Nicolson.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I welcome the right hon. Lady—my fifth Culture Secretary—to her place. I agree with my friend the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) that there is a more constructive atmosphere on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I sit.
Last night, I was honoured to be present at the PinkNews awards, where I spoke up for trans rights with colleagues across party, including Conservatives. There has been an explosion of hate speech online. Women are targeted disproportionately and trans women are targeted especially. Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had to lock its door after barrages of violent online threats, and these are dangerous times. An atmosphere of hate has been fanned by too many newspapers and, sadly, politicians.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the now Prime Minister was wrong to weaponise anti-trans rhetoric during the Tory leadership campaign, as she did in attacking the now Leader of the House?
Michelle Donelan
I do not think that anybody disputes the fact that hate speech and hate crime should have no place in our society, but freedom of speech, of course, is the bedrock from which all freedoms stem. I personally believe that every member of this House has a duty to protect free speech as well as protecting our citizens from illegal harms.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
The UK Government have a strong record of demonstrating our commitment to minority language broadcasting, to make sure that our broadcasters serve all audiences of the UK nations and regions. My hon. Friend will recall that during his previous role at the Scotland Office we both met MG Alba’s CEO earlier this year. I am grateful to the chief executive for raising the issues of the sustainability of Gaelic language broadcasting and for providing detailed proposals for change. My officials have since been in regular contact with the organisation and I am continuing to talk to counterparts at the Scotland Office. I will have further discussions with MG Alba in due course.
Iain Stewart
I am grateful for that answer. Gaelic broadcasting is not just vital culturally and socially, but delivers a positive economic impact. Its future strength, however, requires public sector broadcast status in legislation, akin to that enjoyed by Welsh language broadcasters. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the forthcoming Media Bill will be an ideal opportunity to provide that.
Julia Lopez
I entirely appreciate that certainty of future funding and particularly a strong partnership with the BBC are important for MG Alba to deliver for Gaelic speakers. It has legitimate concerns, and I have been examining its proposals in detail. Together with my officials, I am trying to decide whether the forthcoming Media Bill is the best mechanism to address those concerns, or whether the issues are better addressed through the future funding review of the BBC and the subsequent BBC charter review. I assure my hon. Friend that I am very engaged in these issues and want to get to a good solution.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
There was a time when Gaelic was spoken in much of my far-flung constituency; that is not the case today. I regard Gaelic as not just a Scottish but a United Kingdom treasure. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that she might benefit from coming to the Gàidhealtachd, where Gaelic is spoken in the Western Isles, perhaps in parts of my constituency, to see what needs to be done to help it.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation, and for highlighting the importance of Gaelic not just as a language but as a cultural asset for our country that we should be proud of. I hope that he feels assured that I have been listening to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) about MG Alba and wish to ensure that it has a sustainable future.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
Channel 4 is a great UK success story, and in a rapidly changing media landscape the Government of course want it to thrive in the long term, while maintaining its distinctiveness. I am currently looking at the business case for the sale of Channel 4 and will set out further details to the House in due course.
Mr Sharma
I just want to clarify in my own mind that the right hon. Lady has no plans at present to carry on the previous policy of privatising Channel 4.
Film4 films have collectively won 37 academy awards and 84 BAFTAs—a record that any Hollywood studio would be proud of. Its films include important examples of the British Asian experience, such as “Bhaji on the Beach”. Does the Minister recognise that the privatisation of Channel 4 would jeopardise the only major private investment stream in British film?
Michelle Donelan
As I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am thoroughly reviewing the business case, which is the right thing to do—I am an evidence-based politician. We have a fantastic, growing creative industry in this country, which relies on platforms such as Channel 4. That is, of course, part of the decision- making process.
Mr Speaker
It is very good at covering rugby league at the moment.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Privatising Channel 4 could result in over 1,000 jobs being lost from the supply chain in our nations and regions. Ministers cannot claim to support levelling up while letting this loss go ahead. When will they finally confirm that they know privatising Channel 4 is the wrong decision for our economy, regions and culture?
Michelle Donelan
As I have said, I am reviewing this business case and can assure all Members that I am doing it thoroughly. I am basing my decision on evidence. I am listening to representatives of the sector, all Members of the House and the public, and I will come back shortly with our decision.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
I share hon. Members’ passion for grassroots sport, which brings communities together. I have seen that in my own community, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has in his. It makes people happier and healthier. Since 2019 we have worked with Sport England to invest over £1.16 million in Bradford East. Last year, Sport England received almost £350 million from taxpayers and the national lottery, which we will continue to support.
Imran Hussain
The Secretary of State is absolutely right; Bradford’s grassroots football, cricket and boxing clubs are a vital support network for many of Bradford’s young people. Yet, despite the outstanding work of the volunteers who run them, many have been forced to close their doors because of Government cuts, underfunding and, frankly, lack of support. I hear her saying that over £1 million has been put into my constituency, but I have not seen the effects in our grassroots boxing, football and cricket clubs. Will she commit to ensuring that grassroots clubs get the support they need in the forthcoming sports strategy? I invite her to come to my constituency to see for herself the fantastic work done by grassroots clubs.
Michelle Donelan
Either the Sports Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), or I would be delighted to come to Bradford East. I think that £1.16 million is a substantial amount for one constituency, and I will remain committed to ensuring that we invest in grassroots sports because they are vital in bringing communities together.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
The inquest into Molly Russell’s tragic death further highlights that the No. 1 priority of the Online Safety Bill has to be protecting children and young people. I commit to strengthening that aspect and getting it back to this House imminently.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about the imminent return of the Online Safety Bill. She knows that children and their families have already waited far too long for the Bill to progress. Will she apply a similar sense of urgency to what will happen once the Bill has passed? As she knows, a series of actions are required of Ofcom and the Government to bring this regime fully into force. Will she undertake to ensure that the Government’s part in that happens swiftly?
Michelle Donelan
My right hon. and learned Friend has been a huge advocate of this Bill, on which he has worked personally. He is absolutely right that it is not just about getting the Bill through this place and the other place; it is also about ensuring the Bill works on the ground and makes a tangible difference in protecting children and young people, day in and day out. I will commit to looking at this and ensuring that we go as fast as possible.
Elliot Colburn
I recently had the privilege of meeting a group of Carshalton and Wallington mums who brought to me the very sad case of their children who had accessed illegal drugs through social media companies such as Instagram and Snapchat, which sadly resulted in their taking an overdose and dying. These mums are inspirational in sharing their story. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Online Safety Bill will provide the protections they need to ensure that no other children go through the same thing?
Michelle Donelan
I completely concur with my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for his constituents. Selling illegal drugs is a priority illegal offence in the Online Safety Bill. Platforms will need not only to take content down, but to take proactive steps to prevent drug dealers from abusing their services. If platforms do not remove this content quickly, they will face tough enforcement measures, including huge fines, and the same goes for any other illegal content.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
One thing the coroner highlighted was the effect of harmful algorithms that directed harmful content towards Molly Russell. Will the Minister undertake specifically to look into that issue and deal with that sort of harmful content, because the owners of Meta describe those as not being specifically harmful. It is worrying when the people who run these platforms do not see this as a problem.
Michelle Donelan
My Ministers and I have been looking at this area. One fundamental problem relates to the accountability of these companies and who is ultimately responsible for these algorithms. We have been looking at that and I look forward to updating the House as soon as we bring the Bill back.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Are we not playing a wonderful game at the moment, guessing who the Ministers are, Mr Speaker? I shall miss it when everything is stabilised. I chaired the Education Committee and looked at this area. The fact is that sophisticated, mendacious and quite evil people are involved in this; they are clever—they move. Minister, please do not underestimate what you are taking on.
Michelle Donelan
I do not think anybody is underestimating the scale of the challenge. We will be the first country in the world to really tackle this head on to the extent that we will be doing. I have committed in the House to bringing this Bill back imminently, and that it will be one that will deliver, especially for children and young people, which is vital.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will have seen the research last week from Ofcom on children’s online ages, which showed that because children routinely sign up for social media before the supposed minimum age of 13, using a false date of birth, they then continue to get older in how they appear online, as well as getting older in their actual age. That means that by the time they reach 14 or 15 huge swathes of teenagers appear to the social media platforms to be over 18. So how can we ensure that protections that are meant to protect children online do in fact protect them?
Michelle Donelan
I know that my right hon. Friend is passionate about this Bill and has played a leading role in helping to shape it to this point. I agree that unless social media platforms manage to assess the age of their users, they will fall foul of the Bill. Let us face it: for too long social media companies have got away scot-free. That will end with this Bill, because we will put in place protections for children that will be even stronger.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her determination to change things for the better, which is what we all want. In four out of five cases of online grooming the victims are girls. Recent studies have shown that to be factual. So what discussions has she had with the Department for Education about online awareness in schools? It is very important that this starts there, because if we start it there, we can stop these things later on.
Michelle Donelan
My ministerial team and I, as well as the Department, work closely with the Department for Education. Media literacy is of course essential, and the Online Safety Bill will strengthen Ofcom’s media literacy functions. I look forward to further discussions about this with that Department.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to her post. She and I have worked together before and I look forward to working with her again in future.
Molly Russell’s death was an avoidable tragedy and serves as a further call to action to regulate social media. We owe it to her family and countless others to do this without delay—this is beyond party politics. The coroner found that much of the self-harm and suicide material that Molly saw was not content she sought, but was pushed to her by engagement algorithms. That goes to the heart of what the Online Safety Bill was seeking to address. Although it was not perfect, the Bill had almost completed its passage here before the summer, and it was already long overdue. Does the Secretary of State accept that these delays are costing lives? Will she take up the offer that I have made to her in private to work together to do whatever it takes to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as possible?
Michelle Donelan
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member. I have worked with her extensively over the years and I have a great deal of respect for her. I absolutely share her commitment to protecting children. That is why the Online Safety Bill really is my No. 1 priority. As I said, I cannot announce the business of the House today, but I can assure the House that the Bill will be brought back very soon—a commitment I also gave to Ian Russell. We must protect children from being allowed to be subjected by social media companies to the type of content that Molly Russell was subjected to, and the horrendous tragedy that followed. For too long, social media platforms have shirked their responsibilities for protecting children. It is time that we all worked together to put an end to that.
Lucy Powell
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment and look forward to working together. To be fair to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), she committed to the very difficult task of getting the Bill through, with all the vested interests and internal differences. The current Secretary of State says she is rewriting it, but I fear that will lead to further delay and disagreement. She is never going to satisfy those who dogmatically view this only through the lens of free speech. They do not understand that the issue is not the views expressed, but the power of the platforms to cause harm, which Ian Russell described as “monetising misery”. Does she agree that sticking to the important principles of duty of care and regulating business models, algorithms and their impact is the best way of squaring this circle?
Michelle Donelan
I want to be absolutely clear: my intention is not to appease everybody; my intention is to ensure that we bring the Bill back as soon as we possibly can and that we prioritise protecting children and young people. The hon. Member will see that happen very shortly.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
We are investing £5 billion in Project Gigabit so that hard-to-reach areas can get ultra-reliable gigabit speeds. We have already upgraded over 740,000 premises. National gigabit coverage has therefore rocketed to 71%, up from just 6% in January 2019. We have already launched procurements with a value of over £700 million to deliver gigabit connections to hard-to-reach homes and businesses across the UK. We recently signed our first contracts in north Dorset and Teesdale, with more coming soon.
Helen Whately
My constituents in Throwley and Wichling were incredibly disappointed to find that their bids for gigabit vouchers were unsuccessful, especially after they worked so hard to gather community support. While most people are able to use their broadband to do video calls, work from home, and stream movies and matches, those constituents cannot. Can my hon. Friend assure me that they will be getting fast broadband soon?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case and for all the work that she and her team did to help those villages. I asked officials to look into this case, and they told me that the broadband supplier responsible for the projects in those villages did not put them forward for consideration as a voucher priority area, on the basis that they were not expected to deliver a gigabit-capable connection faster than our own Project Gigabit procurement in Kent. In good news, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are making very good progress on that procurement and we hope to be able to launch it in the coming weeks.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Damian Collins)
The Government are driving forward a digital regulatory approach that unlocks growth and boosts trust. As part of that, we are taking steps to improve transparency and accountability, including through the Online Safety Bill; data protection legislation that maintains rules for responsible usage; and digital markets legislation, which will promote competition in digital markets.
Sir John Whittingdale
Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the recent behaviour of PayPal in arbitrarily removing certain accounts of campaigning and journalistic organisations without any warning or explanation? Will he consider how the Online Safety Bill can give greater protection for free speech by increasing the accountability of PayPal, Facebook and the other giant tech platforms?
Damian Collins
Absolutely. I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is really important that big tech platforms are transparent and accountable to their users in their terms of service for how they trade. That is important in the principle of how the Online Safety Bill works, both in protecting freedom of speech and in ensuring that companies enforce their platform policies correctly. In terms of digital markets, it is also important that customers know what fair access they have to markets and that they will be treated fairly by platforms, and that the platforms make clear what their terms of service are.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
We will create a new bespoke British data protection system that will give people around the world world-class data rights and control over their data, and greater ability to benefit from its responsible use, as well as maintaining data advocacy. For example, our Bill will create a better complaints system and provide the framework for the delivery of smart data schemes that will empower individual consumers and business customers to access and share their data simply and securely with trusted third parties, enabling innovative services.
Chi Onwurah
On 1 October, the Government announced that they would be collecting, processing and storing all British smart meter data. This is despite assurances given over many years that that data was under the control of households and that only they could decide who accessed it, and that, without express permission, it would be used only for billing purposes. Indeed, in 2016, the then Home Secretary told me that smart meter data is protected and not under the Government’s control. Will the Secretary of State set out to me how households in this country can control their smart meter data in the face of this chaotic and dysfunctional Government?
Michelle Donelan
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and discuss this further and also take this away to discuss with hon. and right hon. Members across Government.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Mr Speaker
He is not here. The Secretary of State can continue with business.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)
I want to start by paying tribute to my Department for its role in Her late Majesty’s funeral and the Lying in State. At the same time, we have also been getting on with delivering the Government’s priorities. In the coming weeks, we will, among other things, be announcing a new package of measures to assist broadband roll-out, bringing back the Online Safety Bill, providing an update on Channel 4 after reviewing the business case and updating the Gambling Act 2005 and the fan-led reviews.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of museums. Our Department is aware of the situation that she has raised and the Arts Council has been in direct contact, but I will keep a close eye on this and will keep her updated on any progress.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting her particular concerns in West Worcestershire. We obviously share her desire to get great connections to everybody as quickly as possible. We are reviewing the voucher scheme and checking that it is working correctly at the moment and seeing whether it can be enhanced. I see from the figures that her West Worcestershire constituency is lower than average on gigabit connections, but we have an active procurement review under way and hope to be able to give her more details on that soon because we will be mopping up all the hard-to-reach areas of her patch.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Michelle Donelan
I am happy to take the matter away and come back to the hon. Member.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Stuart Andrew
I understand the importance of and the attachment that many fans have for the fan-led review and recognise that this is a very important sport nationally. Obviously, as a new Minister, I want to take the time to look at it in detail, which is what I am doing at the moment. I am pleased to say that my first meeting was actually with the fans’ groups to hear their views first.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Stuart Andrew
It seems, following the earlier question from the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), that I am going to have a day trip to Bradford, which I am more than happy to do, considering that it is right next door to my constituency. I was pleased to be at the launch of the men’s tournament; it is fantastic that we are hosting the rugby league world cup, and the hon. Lady rightly highlights Bradford’s ambitious plans, particularly given its city of culture status. I would be more than happy to come and see her.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
We need more full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband in the Kettering constituency. Can we have it sooner rather than later?
Julia Lopez
I welcome my hon. Friend constantly holding my feet to the fire on Kettering’s gigabit capability. He is actually above the national average, with 88% of premises in his seat having gigabit-capable broadband, but I am glad to say that we are doing more. We will be awarding a procurement next year to try to tackle all those bits we have not yet reached.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Julia Lopez
My understanding is that some of the main challenges come from the Scottish Government’s R100 programme, which is making the roll-out rather challenging. His colleagues in Scotland have asked for Scotland to have more than the per premises cap, basically asking us to give more money to Scotland than we are giving to other parts of the country. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think we should be paying for the mistakes of the regime.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
A year ago, I and a number of colleagues from across the House had to intervene when, due to poor governance, Derby County football club went into administration and came within a few days of going out of business before being rescued by local supporter David Clowes. Can the Minister assure the House and all football fans that the recommendations of the fan-led review will be implemented in full, so that we can get better governance in this important industry?
Stuart Andrew
Sadly, my hon. Friend’s example demonstrates the need for reform within football. I can tell him that I am taking this matter incredibly seriously, which is why I want to take the time to review and ensure that we are getting this right. We want to give confidence to all the fans who enjoy this great sport.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Julia Lopez
I confess that, as the Minister for the creative industries, I share some of the hon. Lady’s concerns. I will be meeting my ministerial counterpart who has the Intellectual Property Office in his portfolio to look at this matter, because I appreciate some of the issues the hon. Lady raises.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK radio listeners are able to find British broadcasters, including the BBC and commercial radio, in a world where access through smart speakers is controlled by global tech companies?
Michelle Donelan
The media Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech in May 2022 and the Government will introduce it when parliamentary time allows. We have been looking at including radio.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Charities in my constituency face the double whammy of more people needing urgent help and fewer people able to donate, given this Government’s calamitous handling of the cost of living crisis. Just last month, Slough food bank reported a 66% increase in annual usage, with a staggering 888 food parcels handed out each month. As we approach the winter months and the situation inevitably worsens, what steps will the Government take to ensure that such organisations can operate throughout the winter?
Michelle Donelan
As the hon. Member will know, we introduced the energy price guarantee to help organisations with the cost of living, and are working with all sectors through the current challenging time. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the matter further.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I apologise to you and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for my discourtesy in not being here at the beginning of topical questions. Earlier this week, I met representatives from the creative industry. They would warmly welcome the media Bill if the Channel 4 provisions were dropped. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this issue?
Michelle Donelan
I would be more than delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to push the Minister a little bit further, as he might appreciate. There is widespread support for the fan-led review. Okay, have the discussions about how it is going to be done, but can we have a commitment from the Front-Bench team that they are going to implement the principles of the review—an independent regulator, fairer distribution of funding, and an end to parachute payments?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman is very good at pushing me on points, but I am sure he would accept that it is only right that I check all the details before making commitments. I assure him, though, that we will be publishing the White Paper very soon.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Is the Minister able to update the House on any discussions he has held with the premier league and the English Football League to encourage a fairer distribution of money throughout the Football League pyramid?
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met both organisations; as I say, my first engagement was with the Football Supporters’ Association. It is right to listen to all those views, and we are aware of discussions that are happening across the various groups, but I recognise that reform is needed. That is the firmest commitment I can give at this stage.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State will, I hope, have been made aware that in the early hours of this morning, the main telecommunications cable to Shetland was cut. As a consequence, this morning, my constituents in Shetland have very limited access to telephone or broadband services, with all the implications that has for the emergency services, let alone local families and businesses. First, can the Secretary of State give me an assurance that we will get a full statement on what is happening? I am told at the moment that it could be two days before services are replaced. Secondly, in the longer term, can we have a proper look at the resilience of that service? It is just not acceptable for a community the size of Shetland to be left without telecommunications for this long.
Michelle Donelan
We can commit to get the right hon. Member an update before the end of play today. Of course, our roll-out is important, but resilience is equally important.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
It is an honour to serve as Attorney General for the second time, and to lead a legal profession that is the envy of the world and a Government Legal Department whose integrity is an example to multiple jurisdictions. I am very proud to hold that position. I also welcome the Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), to his place.
In May, this Government published the review of disclosure and amended the disclosure guidelines to deliver improvements for police, prosecutors and the victims of crime. The new guidelines feature an annex on data protection that will ease the burden on police, leaving them with more time on the beat and to investigate crime.
Ian Levy
Within Northumberland, there has been a review that highlights multiple failings in multi-agency communication, and states that lessons have been learned. However, I have been contacted by constituents, and it appears that similar failings are still happening. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please reassure me and the people of Blyth Valley that steps are being taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is quite right: disclosure is a very important issue, whether in Northumberland or any other part of this jurisdiction. Updated principles on accessing third-party material have strengthened privacy protections for victims, and mandate that officers must have clear written reasons in place before accessing any material such as, for example, therapy notes. My hon. Friend has made an important point about communication between the criminal justice agencies, and we are ensuring that that continues to improve apace.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that this is a very important matter in terms of miscarriages of justice. The Chairman of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. Will he look at other countries’ good practice on this, especially the United States?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are always looking and willing to look at how other jurisdictions practise in this sphere. Of course, it is a problem across western jurisdictions, because people now carry on their person so much more data capacity than ever before, which opens up a wide array of questions as to disclosure. The amended disclosure guidelines unequivocally state that indiscriminate access to personal records should never occur, and it is worth noting that the volume of suspects charged has continued to increase quarter on quarter, with a rise from 526 to 550 in quarter 3. That is an increase of 4.6%, so we are moving in the right direction on charges.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The Government stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia’s invasion. I am personally dedicated to supporting Ukraine’s search for accountability and justice. I recently spoke to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Andriy Kostin, and heard his important ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute domestically Russia’s actions on his country’s territory, which are appalling. We discussed, among other things, UK support through the UK-US-EU Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group initiative, which will provide direct practical and advisory support to his office in Kyiv. The UK will continue to play a leading role to ensure accountability for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Giles Watling
I thank the Attorney General for his answer. This abhorrent invasion is no longer focused on by the media as it should be, and there are atrocities going on every day. Does he agree that every crime committed by Russian soldiers must be taken into consideration and people must be held to account, as must their leader, Mr Putin?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right. The Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group was launched on 25 May by the EU, the US and the UK to ensure efficient co-ordination of respective efforts. It is a very complicated area, but we want to support accountability efforts on the ground. My colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, has already announced £2.5 million of UK support for that initiative and for elements of that organisation, including the deployment of mobile justice teams, and training for judges is already under way.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is obviously important that all the evidence the Ukrainians are gathering to seek out those who have carried out crimes is collated quickly. Is there any help that our Government can give the Ukrainians to do that? It is so important that those people are held accountable before the courts sooner rather than later. What can be done to expedite the process?
The Attorney General
Justice delayed is justice denied, and that is as accurate today as it ever was. We have to move at pace, while getting it right, and collating the evidence is important. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can to support the Ukrainians in every conceivable way, including in this area.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I welcome the Attorney General back to his place; he is providing much needed continuity amidst the chaos. Bombings of civilians, conducting executions, torturing war prisoners and sexual violence—independent investigators have concluded that Russia has committed all those crimes. I have heard what the Government intend to do, but what specific steps will they take now and in the future to ensure that perpetrators face the consequences of their actions in an international court?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that. Of course, this is a cross-party issue. We want to see these horrific crimes brought to justice. We will do everything we can to support the Ukrainians in that effort, and we are working across the international community to do that. We have put money into mobile justice teams and training judges for the Ukrainians. We are doing everything we can and will continue to do more.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
His Majesty’s Government are committed to improving rape prosecutions and are investing across the justice system. Through Operation Soteria, prosecutors across the south-west have helped to lead the way with a focus on joint working with the police and on early advice, and an enhanced service to victims.
Luke Pollard
Last week, Devon and Cornwall police were placed into special measures because of their failure to record crime and manage sexual offenders. Fewer than 20 people were convicted of rape in Devon and Cornwall out of 1,500 recorded offences last year. People are losing faith in the CPS and the police. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to extend the sexual offences backlog pilot from London and the north to include the south-west, with a clear focus on reducing the 1,000-day wait for rape victims to get justice in court?
The Solicitor General
Not least because I am a south-west MP, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. Work is already under way: I mentioned Operation Soteria in the south-west. Specifically in his Plymouth constituency, I know that work is going on with the violence against women and girls commission; I have seen that work and I commend the commissioners for it. There is also a conference happening in the next few weeks and I ask him to keep me updated.
More broadly, on the hon. Gentleman’s substantive question, referrals from the police to the CPS are up for offences of rape, charges are up and prosecutions are up. I am determined that that positive work and positive trend must continue.
Selaine Saxby
In North Devon, I am repeatedly told by police that the CPS requires too much information before it can decide whether to prosecute, that there are many outstanding rape cases and that the delays that victims endure result in some feeling unable to wait the months or even years for cases to progress. Can I meet my hon. Friend to see what can be done to unblock the situation?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. She is right that the workload on our police and the CPS is high. Close working between the police and the CPS is vital. Hot off the press is the refreshed joint national action plan, which was published today and shows that the CPS has seen a 58% increase in charges. I know that she takes the issue incredibly seriously. I would be delighted to meet her, whether here or in her beautiful constituency of North Devon.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The Government continue to ensure that the police and prosecutors have the necessary tools to tackle the dangerous and highly disruptive tactics used by a small minority of protesters to wreak havoc on people going about their lawful daily lives. In relation to the Insulate Britain protesters, for example, the CPS has so far secured no fewer than 364 convictions in the magistrates court. It continues to take those cases to trial, which shows its resolute determination to bring those criminals to justice.
Sir Edward Leigh
On Tuesday, the House decided to criminalise grandmothers who hold prayer cards outside abortion agencies. At the same time, quite rightly, we brought in ever more new powers to deal with Just Stop Oil protesters. The difference is that the grandmothers will go away quietly, but the other protesters will keep turning up. There is no point having more and more legislation—we have so much legislation in this area—if the police do not enforce it and the CPS and the courts do not throw the book at these people and give them long custodial sentences.
The Attorney General
Of course, the sentencing of such individuals is a matter for our independent criminal justice system, but we have an offence of nuisance on the statute books, as well as offences such as obstructing the public highway, the powers of which have been increased to 12 months’ imprisonment. The Public Order Bill is going through Parliament, which I was rather surprised that the Opposition did not support. As I have said, we are determined that those who seek to disrupt the normal lives of citizens meet the full force of the law. That is what should happen and that is what is happening. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police, as the operationally independent authorities, are working extremely hard in close partnership to bring those people to justice and see that they receive the punishment that they richly deserve.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
May I welcome the latest team of Law Officers to their places? I think I missed a stray Solicitor General in the summer recess, between the incumbent and the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), but it is very hard to keep up these days.
We all know there are well-trusted laws to criminalise this type of behaviour, but is the Conservative party now opposed to all public protest and free speech? Reading its 2019 manifesto, I would have expected to see the Solicitor General and the Attorney General on the picket line opposing fracking, but last night they voted to allow fracking to go ahead, including, I presume, in their constituencies. If the Law Officers are prepared to break a clear promise in such a blatant and cynical way, what example does that set to others in upholding the rule of law?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman’s question is not of course on point to the question asked, but the reality of the matter is that the Labour party is embarrassed by the fact that it is on the side of the protesters, rather than those people who wish to go about their lawful duties, and that is why it did not support the Public Order Bill. The offence of public nuisance is available, it has a wide array of penalties available to it and we know the courts will use those powers. I think the Labour party ought to focus on supporting the British public, who wish to go about catching trains, driving along roads and going about their lawful business.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
The CPS inspectorate recently inspected CPS Wales and commended the area for its strong performance—for example, in disclosure and its good handling of victims and witness care. The CPS maintains excellent relationships with its criminal justice partners and is driving improvements throughout Wales.
Craig Williams
The CPS and magistrates courts in Wales have done a terrific job. In fact, they were the first to recover from the pre-pandemic backlog. I recently met Jenny Hopkins, the excellent director of the CPS, and I would encourage and ask the Minister to come to Wales, especially a rural setting such as Montgomeryshire, and have a roundtable to discuss access to justice.
The Solicitor General
I heard about my hon. Friend’s very productive meeting with the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, and he rightly raises the excellent work that is being done by CPS Wales to address the magistrates court backlog. He is absolutely right that it is the first area to recover from the impact of covid, and I would be absolutely delighted to join him on a visit to Wales.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The CPS is committed to ensuring that victims of crime are properly able to access justice. Last year, the CPS commissioned independent research to better understand what victims want and need, and to identify areas for improvement. On 27 June, the CPS published its response to the research findings, setting out key areas of action to improve how it engages with victims, and this includes delivering a universal service offer for all victims of crime.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Attorney General for that response, but this Government’s inability to prioritise victims is well documented. Today, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse will be published. For these victims, their abuse is not historical; they live with it every single day, and they need justice. Will he commit to implement all the recommendations in full?
The Attorney General
This Government have repeatedly shown, and rightly so, our support for victims and prioritising the rights of victims. The CPS publishes yearly data—for example, on the victims’ right to review scheme. Nearly 78,000 decisions were made that were eligible for the scheme, under 2,000 decisions were challenged and 270 were found to be wrong—that is 0.35%—but I want to apologise for any decisions that were wrong. Even in that tiny number, it is human lives that are involved. We have focused greatly on the rights of victims, and we will continue to do so.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Can I warmly welcome the reappointment of the Attorney General, and indeed the appointment of the excellent Solicitor General?
It is fantastic news that the number of rape prosecutions is now 30% higher than it was in the last quarter pre covid. Does the Attorney General agree that, if we are going to continue that progress, we need to widen the pipeline of referrals from the police? In that endeavour, we need to ensure that the redaction burden is reduced so that it is proportionate, so that those cases are passed to the CPS and victims get the justice they deserve.
The Attorney General
I commend my hon. and learned Friend for his time as Solicitor General. I reiterate, as he has done, that since the last time I was a Law Officer a year-plus ago, the number has increased by 30%, as he rightly says, which is extremely impressive. The CPS has set out its priority areas under the victim transformation programme and we are going to work to those.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I congratulate the Attorney General on what is, this time, his permanent appointment to the role—as much as anything can be considered permanent under this Government. I genuinely hope that he will succeed in restoring to the role of Attorney General some dignity, stability and—dare I say it?—sanity. Will he start by giving me a straight answer to this crucial question: will it be possible to impose real-term spending cuts on the Crown Prosecution Service without making charge rates, court backlogs, and victim support even worse than they are now?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. As she knows, this Government have prioritised crime and the victims of crime, and we are, and always have been, the party of law and order. Whatever measures we have to take, including those we had to take when we first came in in 2010 after the appalling disaster of the previous Labour Government, we are focused on dealing with crime and the victims of crime—hence thousands more police officers now being appointed.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
By convention, whether the Law Officers have been asked to provide advice, and the contents of any such advice, is not disclosed outside Government.
Chris Stephens
Will the Attorney General confirm whether he shares similar views to those of his predecessor, the now former Home Secretary, who recently said that she wanted to see a front page of The Telegraph with a flight to Rwanda, and that that was her dream? Surely it is time to dream another dream, and scrap the cruel, inhumane Rwanda scheme in its entirety.
The Attorney General
I cannot speak to other people’s dreams. I know the Scottish nationalists have their own dreams, which I do not think will ever be realised, because the Union of this country is what the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom want to maintain. The convention that I mentioned is important, and I intend to respect it. It protects the ability of Law Officers, as chief legal advisers to the Government, to give full and frank legal advice.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Crown Prosecution Service north-west has consistently achieved a conviction rate that is higher than the national average. The area conviction rate was 84.4%, which is two percentage points higher than the national rate.
Sara Britcliffe
It is encouraging that since the CPS published its strategy on rape and serious sexual offences in 2020, the number of rape prosecutions has risen dramatically, with a 62.9% increase recorded. I know, however, that several of my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden are keen to see the specialist trauma training for all court staff, police and prosecutors that is being trialled. With such great interest in that scheme, will the Minister please update me on its findings?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of this issue, and more broadly for her support for victims not only in her area, but across the north-west and the country. She should look out for two further specific measures: first, Operation Soteria and its continued roll-out across the country; and secondly the victims Bill. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on both.
Departure of Previous Home Secretary
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the departure of his predecessor.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) resigned yesterday, following a contravention of the ministerial code relating to a breach of Cabinet confidentiality and the rules relating to the security of Government business. The Prime Minister has made clear the importance of maintaining high standards in public life, and her expectation that Ministers should uphold those standards, as set out in the ministerial code. All Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers remain in office only so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister, and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. My right hon. and learned Friend has explained her decision to resign, and to be clear, the information that was circulated was subject to Cabinet confidentiality and under live discussion within the Government. In the light of that, it would not be appropriate to discuss the specifics of the matter further in the House, but the Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility.
The Prime Minister paid tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend’s service as Home Secretary, noting that her time in office was marked by a
“steadfast commitment to keeping the British people safe”
and overseeing the
“largest ever ceremonial policing operation, when thousands of officers were deployed from forces across the United Kingdom to ensure the safety of the royal family and all those who gathered in mourning for Her Late Majesty The Queen.”
The Prime Minister, having accepted my right hon. and learned Friend’s resignation, acted decisively to appoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) as Home Secretary yesterday afternoon. I hold the new Home Secretary in the highest regard and note that he is already getting on with the job, keeping the people of the country safe.
Yvette Cooper
I notice that the Home Secretary is not in his place this morning, unless the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), has been appointed Home Secretary in the last few hours. To be honest, nothing would surprise us at the moment, because this is total chaos. We have a third Home Secretary in seven weeks. The Cabinet was appointed only six weeks ago, but the Home Secretary was sacked, the Chancellor was sacked and the Chief Whip was sacked and then unsacked. We then had the unedifying scenes last night of Conservative MPs fighting like rats in a sack. This is a disgrace.
The former Home Secretary circulated a letter, and that seems to contradict what the Minister said. She said that the document was
“a draft Written Ministerial Statement…due for publication imminently”
that had already been briefed to MPs. Is that not true? Will he explain the answer to that? At what time did the former Home Secretary inform the Cabinet Secretary of the breach? Has a check been made of whether she sent other documents through personal emails, putting security at risk? Was there a 90-minute row about policy between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary? Given the huge disagreements we have seen in the last few weeks between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary on drugs policy, Rwanda, the India trade deal, seasonal agriculture, small boats—and with a bit of tofu thrown in over the lettuce for good measure—is anything about home affairs agreed on in the Cabinet?
What we know is that the former Home Secretary has been running her ongoing leadership campaign while the current one is too busy to come to the House because he is doing his spreadsheets on the numbers for whoever he is backing to come next. But who is taking decisions on our national security? It is not the Prime Minister, nor the past or current Home Secretaries. Borders, security and policing are too important for that instability, just as people’s livelihoods are too important for the economic instability that the Conservative party has created. It is not fair on people. To quote the former Home Secretary, this is indeed a total “coalition of chaos”. Why should the country have to put up with this for a single extra day?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I am sure that the right hon. Member is aware that breaches of the ministerial code are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office, and that is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here to answer the urgent question. The Prime Minister took advice from the Cabinet Secretary, as we saw from her letter, and she is clear that it is important that the ministerial code is upheld and Cabinet responsibility is respected. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold the highest standards. We have seen her act consistently in that regard.
These were breaches of the code. The Prime Minister expects her Ministers to uphold the ministerial code, as the public also rightly expect, and she took the requisite advice from the Cabinet Secretary before taking the decision.
I am mindful that it is not usual policy to comment in detail on such matters, but, if some background would be helpful—I appreciate that much of this is already in the public domain—the documents in question contained draft Government policy, which remained subject to Cabinet Committee agreement. Having such documents on a personal email account and sharing them outside of Government constituted clear breaches of the code—under sections 2.14 and 2.3, if that is helpful to look at. The Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility, and Ministers must be held to the highest standards.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Can the Minister assure us that the resignation was entirely due to a technical breach of the rules and that there was no policy disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary? Many of us had great confidence in the former Home Secretary’s determination to ensure that we meet our manifesto commitments and that we should not replace mass migration from Europe with mass migration from the rest of the world. Can the Minister assure us that the policy remains exactly the same as it was under the previous Home Secretary and that we will stop mass migration? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have conversations between Back Benchers and officials in the Box. [Interruption.] I know but, please, it is very distracting. Can we just make sure that it does not happen?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I can reassure him that this Government stand firm in tackling illegal immigration. Again, this is not my policy area, but I am sure the new Home Secretary will highlight that. I also reassure my right hon. Friend that he will have seen the resignation letter from the former Home Secretary where she outlines her reasons and that this was for a breach of the ministerial code, which is why she took the decision to resign.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Let us be clear: the idea that this Conservative Government are suddenly avid followers of the ministerial code is for the birds. What was the real reason for the Home Secretary’s abrupt departure? Was it the case that she refused to implement immigration policies that were aimed at hitting high growth targets due to her dogmatic views? Speaking of dogmatic views, she and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), both supported the dangerous and immoral Rwanda policy, flying in the face of their own officials’ advice about the human rights implications. Will the Minister confirm that the old Home Secretary’s departure marks the end of that abhorrent policy? Will it be consigned to the scrap heap where it belongs? I will just end by quoting Colin Yeo, a prominent immigration lawyer noted for his comprehensive analysis of home affairs matters. Today, he posted an assessment called “Braverman’s legacy as Home Secretary”. It simply says:
“Suella Braverman was Home Secretary for 43 days.”
Does the Minister have anything to add to that?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I will not pre-empt Government policy. Work on looking at immigration as part of the growth plan is ongoing, but it would not be right for me to speculate on private discussions. That is a matter for decision by the Cabinet. We are here to discuss breaches of the ministerial code and the reasons for the Home Secretary’s resignation.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), makes a really good point: my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) would make an excellent Home Secretary. [Laughter.] But that is another conversation. I am sad to see the previous Home Secretary leave. We had a conversation last week about small boats, the European Court of Human Rights and the excellent Rwanda scheme. But I am not convinced, so please convince me Minister, that the Cabinet, the Government and No. 10 were totally behind the previous Home Secretary.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my hon. Friend, who is ever the champion of secure borders and will no doubt continue to push that case. The Government have shown that we are committed to tackling illegal immigration and the criminal acts going on in the channel. Again, while I would not want to pre-empt the policies of the new Home Secretary, I am sure that when he next comes to the House, he will be able to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
No Home Secretary, no Chief Whip, no Deputy Chief Whip—this truly is a hokey-cokey Cabinet, isn’t it? In and out! What I want to ask the Minister directly is this: there is a world of difference between security and embarrassment for the Government, so can he tell us the security classification of the documents he is referring to? And can he tell us whether any other Ministers are using personal email accounts to conduct Government business?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
That is not information I am privy to and nor should it necessarily be in the public domain. It has been made very clear, from the statement at the start, that we are dealing with sensitive Government matters. It is important that sensitive Government documents are kept sensitive, and that is the reason the Home Secretary tendered her resignation. She recognises that the ministerial code was breached and that is why, as outlined in her letter, she resigned.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister outline the Government’s current policy on immigration, and will he tell the House whether it is under review at the moment?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I refer him to the previous answers given. Again, it is not for me to discuss policy today as much as it is to discuss the reasons for the resignation of the Home Secretary. However, I am sure that the new Home Secretary will come to the House at a future date to discuss that in line with the growth plan and our commitments to tackle immigration.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The fact that someone who defended Dominic Cummings and expressed her intent to break international law ever became our Home Secretary shows how broken the Government are under the Tories, but having a new Home Secretary does not solve the problem. This Government are gridlocked, endlessly U-turning and completely failing the public. Is it not clear that it is only through a general election that we can again bring stability and security to our country?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Again, I remind the hon. Lady that we do not live in a presidential system and, of course, that it is up to the Government to command the confidence of the House, which is the case. It has been made very clear that we will not be having a general election, but that is not the business for the House this morning. We are here to discuss the resignation of the Home Secretary, and I think we should stick to that, Mr Speaker, rather than trying to diverge into other areas.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
My constituents were informed yesterday that 200 economic migrants will be accommodated in a hotel in Ipswich town centre, at great cost to the taxpayer, putting pressure on local public services and also putting local jobs at risk. Will the Minister confirm to me that the new Home Secretary will prioritise the unsustainable practice of accommodating illegal immigrants in hotels and throw support behind things like the Rwanda scheme, which the Labour party opposes? That is potentially the only way that we can nip this problem in the bud.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In terms of reassurance, we have seen the Prime Minister acting swiftly to get a new Home Secretary in place yesterday afternoon. That is because the Government are committed to pushing ahead with our agenda and important issues that need attention, such as those that my hon. Friend highlighted. That is why it is so important that we have that stability and why the Prime Minister took the action that she did.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is surely obvious that the Home Secretary resigned because it is now understood in Government that their immigration policy is a major block to economic growth. If that is the case, I welcome the change and the new Home Secretary, as we will if he ever graces the Chamber with his presence. When the Minister reports back to the Home Office, will he remind the Home Secretary that, when looking at immigration policy in relation to economic growth, we need urgent change in the law on visas for non-European economic area nationals seeking to work in our fishing industry?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Once again, I think it has been made clear that we should not respond to speculation. Private discussions are exactly that and we have come here today to deal with the facts. The facts are that the Home Secretary tendered her resignation for a breach of the ministerial code and that policy issues are something for another time.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I was very disappointed to see the previous Home Secretary leave her role. She is a tremendous loss to those of us who hope that one day—just one day—this Government might finally get a grip on the small boats crisis. It would be a huge mistake if, upon her departure, the Government were to soften their tough line on preventing illegal immigrants entering this country. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy remains unchanged?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Although I may have already said that I cannot speak on behalf of other Ministers, I think my hon. Friend will have seen the Prime Minister’s letter to the Home Secretary in which she was thanked for her work. As well as the huge policing operation for Her late Majesty, there is the other work that she has been doing, such as clamping down on illegal immigration and keeping the British people safe, and I am sure that that work will continue.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It has been widely reported that a member of the Cabinet was involved in a fracas during the vote last night. Was there a breach of the ministerial code? Will it be investigated?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
If the hon. Gentleman believes that such a breach has occurred, there is a set process for referring it, but I do not think that we should be commenting on speculation. As we saw in the press this morning, there are many stories about the Lobby last night. I was in the Lobby and certainly did not see what I believe other people have been saying they saw. Rather than commenting on speculation, I think we should stick to facts—and the facts are why we are here today.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
There seem to be as many theories about the real reason for the departure of the former Home Secretary as there are stories about what on earth went on—we all saw it—in the fiasco over which the Government presided last night. Can we have a bit more clarity about what has really gone on and what exactly is happening?
I have noticed that the Minister is being somewhat selective in whose questions about immigration he answers. I think it is quite important that he gives us some clarity, here and now, on whether he is seriously defending the abhorrent policies of the former Home Secretary.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but—once again—we are not here today to discuss specific policies, we are not here to discuss gossip, we are not here to discuss rumours and we are not here to discuss what people think did or did not go on yesterday.
This is a completely different issue: we are here to discuss the resignation of the Home Secretary for a breach of the ministerial code. The Prime Minister has been very clear that she expects the highest standards in the Government and that all Ministers are expected to adhere to the ministerial code. When they have not done so—when they have breached it—they are expected to resign. That is what the former Home Secretary has done, as she outlined in her letter.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will have heard right hon. and hon. Members talking about the former Home Secretary’s comments about seeing refugees fly away. For a Member to talk in that way about people who are seeking refuge and fleeing war and persecution is deeply beneath this House. It is beneath the standards that we should have. The current Chancellor, who as we all know is probably the Prime Minister, has said that he wants to see a more compassionate conservatism. Will the new Home Secretary be outlining that compassion in dealing with and talking about people seeking asylum and refuge in our country?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Although I cannot discuss policy, I will that this Government have shown compassion. I point not just to the aid that we give abroad, but to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and to what we did before that with Syria and with Afghanistan. This country has a proud history of welcoming refugees. That will continue. The Government have been committed to it and will continue to be committed to it. I am certainly committed to it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Appointing a Home Secretary who lasted for 43 days and a Chancellor who lasted for 38 is unprecedented and farcical. What does it say about the Prime Minister’s judgment and fitness for office? She no longer has any support anywhere in this House. Should she not follow her former colleagues to the Back Benches, pausing only to ask for a Dissolution of Parliament?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I remind the hon. Gentleman that appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has outlined what she expects from the conduct of Ministers, and when she has changed her appointments she has done so swiftly. She has been very clear that she expects us to work together towards our growth plan to deliver for the people of this country. That is why she has taken the actions she has taken.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The former Home Secretary got her jotters because she was on manoeuvres. The Cabinet at large is on manoeuvres to find out who will replace the Prime Minister, but the de facto Prime Minister—the Chancellor—did not want anybody else’s manoeuvres competing with his own. Is that not the truth? It is nothing to do with a breach of the code.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
The proof is in the resignation letter of the former Home Secretary. She herself outlined the reasons why she resigned from her position. She has been very clear about the ministerial code and about which areas of it she has breached. As we have said, other matters are to be treated separately. Once again, we are here today to discuss why the former Home Secretary resigned; we are not here to discuss other matters that involve internal party politics.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister may not want to discuss immigration policy today, but I hope he will share my deep concern at the written answer that I received from the Home Office on Tuesday, which revealed that nearly 900 asylum-seeking children under 16 had been accommodated in hotels. According to a report published this week by the chief inspector of borders and immigration, some of the hotel staff do not even have Disclosure and Barring Service clearance. Will the Minister go back to the Home Office immediately after this session and urge it to take action to get those children out of those hotels and into a place of safety?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I am happy to pass that question on to those at the Home Office so that they can provide the hon. Lady with the information she seeks. Of course, we remain committed to safeguarding children, whether they are in this country or those that this country has received.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Minister has referred to the former Home Secretary’s letter of resignation. In that letter, she said:
“the document was a draft Written Ministerial Statement...due for publication imminently. Much of it had already been briefed to MPs.”
Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? I suspect that it is the case, and if so, we all know full well what the real reason for her resignation was, do we not?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I think I covered this earlier, but I am happy to repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit. Having this information in a personal email account and then sharing it outside Government does constitute a clear breach of the code. Members may wish to look at sections 2.14 and 2.3 if that would be helpful, but the Prime Minister has been clear that the security of Government business is paramount. That is why we hold Ministers to the highest standards, and that is why the Home Secretary tendered her resignation.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a mess. I appreciate that the Minister is having a really bad time having to defend it, but may I ask whether he has asked other Cabinet Members whether they have shared sensitive documents in their personal emails? Have they been asked that question? Has this been extended to other platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal? Will there be a full check of the former Home Secretary’s phone to ensure that not just personal email but other social networks and communication apps may have been used?
At the moment, the Minister is not reassuring the House or the public that the safety of our sensitive national security is being properly looked at by the Government. Can he give us that reassurance, and if he does not know the facts, will he come back to the House with a full disclosure of what apps were used, what documents were shared, and whether every single member of the Government has been checked?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for documents to be kept secure. That is why such material is kept separate from personal emails and so on. This is something that Ministers—including me, as a new Minister—are always reminded of: we are given a big thick rulebook that we have to read.
We have made it clear that when there are breaches, there is a method for reporting them. We will of course take advice from the Cabinet Secretary regarding that, and I am sure that if there are further breaches, Members will be made aware of them in future.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The dogs in the street can see the chaos at the heart of this Government, and the departure of the former Home Secretary—the full truth of which we still do not know, even after what has been said today—is not even the latest example of that chaos. As we face huge economic challenges and a “cost of Tory” crisis, we have probably not needed stronger and more decisive leadership this much since world war two. Does the Minister think that the UK has the strong and decisive leadership that it needs?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I absolutely do have that strong and decisive leadership, and it was strong and decisive leadership that received the resignation of the former Home Secretary and then appointed another Home Secretary on the same afternoon.
As the Prime Minister has made very clear, she wants to move forward. She wants to move quickly to deliver for the people of this country. That is why appointments have been made, and given the breadth of the talent on the Back Benches that we currently have, there is a wide pool of talent from which to choose. I am glad that we are in that position, rather than having to send our Front Benchers on training courses as the Opposition have had to do recently.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Increased immigration would tackle labour shortages and increase the tax take and ending the hostile environment would vastly improve Government efficiency. Given that growing the economy and cutting Government spending are supposed to be Government priorities, when will we hear from the new Home Secretary about how Home Office policy is going to align with the Prime Minister’s stated aims?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
If increased immigration is the SNP’s policy, that is for them. In our policies, we have been clear that we want to attract the brightest and best talent to this country while making sure that we have a firm but fair immigration system. Today is not a day for policy, but I am pleased that we have replaced the Home Secretary swiftly and that we are able to continue the good work that we are currently doing in these areas.
Chinese Consul General: Manchester Protest
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the role of the Chinese consul general, who it now appears took part in the assault of Bob Chan.
The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and deeply aware of the strength of feeling in this House and the other place about the scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. I am happy to provide an update on our response. You have been kind enough, Mr Speaker, to indicate that you will allow me to speak for a couple more minutes to set out the position.
As the House will know, on Sunday afternoon officials were in touch with Greater Manchester police regarding the incident. On Monday, officials spoke to the Chinese embassy to express our very serious concerns at the reports and demand an explanation. FCDO officials were clear that all diplomats and consular staff based in the UK must respect UK laws and regulations. On Tuesday, I announced in this House that the Foreign Secretary had issued a summons to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and demand an explanation for the apparent actions of the staff at the consulate general.
Following my statement, the Chinese chargé d’affaires attended a summons at the FCDO in his capacity as acting ambassador. For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that the Chinese ambassador is currently out of the UK and it is standard practice in such circumstances to summon the chargé d’affaires. I should also be clear that receiving an official summons from the Foreign Secretary is not, as has been described, a light rap on the knuckles but the delivery of a stern message, well understood within the context of diplomatic protocol. It is customary for senior officials to deliver such messages. These summons are not an invitation for an ambassador to have an audience with the Foreign Secretary or Ministers; in any case, given that the chargé d’affaires was involved, it was doubly appropriate that they should be delivered by a senior official.
In the summons the official set out that peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and that everyone in the United Kingdom has the right to express their views peacefully and without fear of violence. He reiterated our clear expectation that diplomatic and consular staff should conduct themselves in accordance with UK law. We have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese embassy that the apparent behaviour of consulate general officials during the incident, as it appears from the footage—more of which is coming out, even as we discuss this—is completely unacceptable.
The independent police investigation is now under way. Greater Manchester police have been clear that there are many strands to what is a complex and sensitive inquiry and that it may take some time. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we await the details of the investigation, but in the meantime I have instructed our ambassador to deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing about the depth of concern at the apparent actions by consulate general staff. Let me be clear that if the police determine that there are grounds to charge any officials, we would expect the Chinese consulate to waive immunity for those officials. If it does not, diplomatic consequences will follow.
Finally, allow me to reiterate to the House the value that we place on the Hong Kong community in the UK. When the national security law was imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, this Government acted immediately in announcing the scheme for British national overseas status holders and their dependants. Since then, more than 100,000 people and their families have made the decision to move to the UK to live, work and make it their new home. I want to put on the record, here, now, again and officially, a reaffirmation of our unwavering support for them and our commitment to their safety. They are most welcome here. Recognising the interest that this issue has across the House, the Government will seek to update the House on this matter next week.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, which follows Tuesday’s urgent question secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns).
It is worth reminding the House of what happened in the Chinese consulate’s grounds on Sunday, where there was an appalling attack on a peaceful protester. We saw appalling videos of Bob Chan being dragged into the consulate’s grounds and seriously abused, and it now appears that the consul general played a part in that physical attack.
Mr Chan is a Hong Kong refugee whom we have welcomed over here. I and others on both sides of the House are working together to help people get out of Hong Kong, and that community now feels very frightened by what the Chinese Government’s representatives are doing in the UK. Mr Chan gave a statement to the media for the first time yesterday. His wife and child were in the room, and it was a very moving statement. He spoke of how badly bruised and damaged he is, and how frightened he is. I thought it was very brave of him, because he now fears being targeted by the Chinese Communist party here in the United Kingdom.
Overnight, we discovered that the consul general has admitted that not only did he take part in the attack but that he was responsible for, in his own words, pulling Mr Chan’s hair and tearing his scalp. That is the consul general, let alone the others who were there.
I have worked with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and others in this House to help Hong Kong refugees, and I credit the Government for their work to get those with British national overseas passports over here. I now urge the Government to be much clearer than just using diplomatic language; I urge them to make it clear, in the light of this new evidence, that it is not just unacceptable that any consular individual should have taken part in anything like this, but that any consular individual who is proved to have been a perpetrator of this outrageous and violent attack on Mr Chan will immediately be made persona non grata and sent back to China. The Government have the diplomatic power to dismiss them. Whether or not there are criminal proceedings, the fact is we do not want them here in the UK and they must go.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and show the resolution that is necessary to send that message to China. He should ignore what other people and officials might say about being careful of tit for tat, get to the Dispatch Box and simply say, “They will leave the United Kingdom. Anyone involved in that attack is not welcome, and the ambassador will be informed of that forthwith.”
Jesse Norman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his further remarks. We should be absolutely clear that participating in an assault, if that is what is determined to have happened, is completely outside the expectations of our rule of law. If such a thing had taken place in front of the British consulate in Shanghai—that question was raised in the House only two days ago—we would, of course, refer the matter to the local policing authorities, as we would have expected in this case. I take his point, which he makes very strongly.
My right hon. Friend is also right to insist, as he insisted during Tuesday’s urgent question, that the diplomatic channel and the legal channel are distinct. I have seen the footage he describes, and I think it looks very black and very damning, but we are going through a process and we need to make a factual determination. Once that is done, and if the situation is found to be as we fear—that is to say there has been a criminal offence of some kind—diplomatic consequences will follow.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question, for yesterday’s interview with Mr Chan and for his work on this matter.
This is yet another complete failure by the Government. Instead of making a statement to this House, which would be the normal way of carrying on, Members have had to secure a second urgent question. What is more concerning is the outrageous admission of the Chinese consul general that he did, in fact, assault Hong Kong democracy protesters in Manchester, which he described as his duty.
The Government’s handling of this issue has been a complete mess. The Minister will know that Labour called for the Chinese ambassador to be summoned so that an explanation could be demanded, but a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statement confirmed that, in a stunning abdication of the Government’s duties, a civil servant held the meeting with Minister Yang, rather than the Foreign Secretary or a responsible Minister. Although I have the upmost confidence in the abilities of FCDO officials to fulfil their responsibilities, there are moments in foreign policy when only an elected Minister will do. Sadly, it appears that what this chaotic Government have unleashed upon the country through their failed economic agenda is now hampering Ministers’ ability to stand up for the most basic rights we hold dear.
The Minister has the chance to send a clear message not only to the Chinese Government, but to the Government in Myanmar and any other country that might have a repressive regime and where refugees fear for their safety in this country. He will know that on 12 May, from this Dispatch Box, we challenged the Government to come forward with a comprehensive safety plan for Hong Kong nationals and others, so I have two questions. Will he meet those from the embassy without any delay to communicate the strong message from MPs about the importance of peaceful protest in this country? Is it the case that Greater Manchester police have not yet received the CCTV footage because the consul general is refusing to hand it over?
What will the Minister do to tackle this problem? Is it possible for him to expel the individual and then for that individual to apply to return? If it were that way round, we would at least know that the Government had taken the strongest action possible.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his interview with Mr Chan. It was an important moment and my right hon. Friend deserves congratulation from across this House on that. As for what the hon. Lady said, I do not think she can have listened to what I said, which is a pity. The ambassador is not in the UK and has not been since before the beginning of this week, so he is not available for any kind of diplomatic interaction. In any case, the chargé d’affaires is the appropriate person for this kind of exchange. The last time an ambassador was summonsed to a meeting with a Minister—indeed, the Foreign Minister —was following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That gives a sense of the way in which the diplomatic niceties work out.
On CCTV and the Greater Manchester police, I cannot comment on that as it is a matter outside the purview of the Government. However, if the Chinese consulate is not giving up any CCTV that it has, I would certainly encourage it to do so.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome this urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. It is clear that the House is unhappy with the course that the Government have taken and I must challenge the Minister on some of the comments he has made this morning. It is not “apparent” involvement; there are no ifs or buts here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has said, the consul general has not only admitted that he is responsible, but praised his own role in these actions and said that he would do it again. It is a political decision to expel, not a policing one. Will the Minister therefore confirm that, as he suggested from the Dispatch Box just now, his preference is to prosecute these individuals and see them in British prisons? Secondly, what are the diplomatic consequences that he references? Are they expulsion? We need plain speaking at this time. The House is clearly united in its position and I urge the Government to listen to it.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that. She has made clear her view that a crime was committed, and that is the view that many others have taken, but it is not a determination of fact at the level we would need. She may have missed the portion of what I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the fact that we recognise that the diplomatic channel and the legal are separate, but they are not separate as regards a determination of fact. Those are the proper grounds for us to make a determination as a Government. As regards the political desire, we will be looking at the fact situation as it is brought forward and at the options. She may have missed this too, but I said that I would expect there to be an update to the House next week, as further events play themselves out. We will make a judgment in due course on that basis.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
This is a serious diplomatic incident. As others have said, the violent clash between pro-democracy protesters and officials at the Chinese consulate is disturbing and goes directly against the tenets of diplomacy, freedom of speech and protest. Bob Chan, who fled Hong Kong for his life, was pulled through the gates into the consulate and beaten by staff. He was left with cuts and bruises to his face, and video footage shows his hair being pulled by the Chinese consul general, who has already asserted that that was his “duty”.
The SNP condemns in the strongest terms this violence against peaceful protesters and calls for an urgent investigation. If the individuals responsible for such violence cannot be criminally prosecuted due to diplomatic immunity, they must be formally expelled from the UK. What action will the Minister commit to taking to hold the consul general to account, in both domestic law and international law?
Jesse Norman
I have set out the actions that we are proposing to take at the moment. Of course, as I have said in terms, we recognise the seriousness of this matter. We also recognise the seriousness with which the House takes the matter. As to the consul general’s remarks about it being his “duty”, I think they are sufficiently absurd not to require comment from the Dispatch Box.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the steadfast support that you have continued to show those of us sanctioned by China.
The consul general seems to have forgotten that he was in Manchester, where we allow free speech, rather than Lhasa, Hong Kong or Xinjiang, where peaceful demonstration is routinely met by violence from the authorities. This does not require “clear” messages “in due course” as the Minister has just said; it requires strong action now. That involves chucking out some of these people and posting additional police outside every Chinese Government establishment in this country to make sure that no more peaceful demonstrators are attacked in this way. Many Uyghur and Tibetan families already feel intimidated; now they can be dragged into Chinese premises and beaten up, or worse.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is right to raise the contrast between our own rule of law and the deplorable, despicable experience that has been meted out to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. He will know that only last week the UN Human Rights Council debated this matter on the back of an extraordinarily damning report by former President Bachelet of Chile, and that is now in the public domain.
As regards police support, I think it is a fact that the demonstration was notified to Greater Manchester police and it was on hand at the time, so it is not absolutely clear that police support, as such, is what is required. There clearly has been some kind of failure in this case, and we need to work out—if there was—what it was.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Yesterday, I joined Bob Chan in a press conference in which he bravely detailed his awful ordeal in my constituency. In an interview with Sky News reporter Inzy Rashid, the Chinese consul general in Manchester confirmed that the footage did show him destroying banners and assaulting a protester, which he argued was his “duty”. The hubris and above-the-law attitude of the consul general is sickening. Will the Government stop dragging their feet and take immediate action by declaring the consul general persona non grata?
Jesse Norman
Of course, the hon. Gentleman too has engaged very closely with Mr Chan, and very welcome that is too. I am sure that everyone around the House would congratulate him and thank him for his support on that. He revisits questions that I have already answered at some length. I have announced that we have put in place a series of measures, which we are going through now. In due course, we will expect to update the House on progress in this developing situation.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your continued efforts in helping us to hold the Chinese to account in this House.
There is another protest this weekend in Manchester. Has the Minister contacted Greater Manchester police to ensure that those protesters will have their protection, which they clearly have not had to date?
Jesse Norman
I personally was not aware of any further demonstrations, but the House has now been made aware of them. I will ensure that officials make some notification of that. This is a Home Office matter, so it will go through the Home Office. Even within the Home Office network of relationships, our police are independent of Government, and rightly so for the best rule-of-law reasons, so we will respect that. I am not sure yet that what happened here necessarily was a failure of policing. In this case, it certainly appears that way, and we expect the Greater Manchester police to be able to do whatever they can the next time round.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Frankly, this is now just ridiculous. I hope the Minister can see the force of the will of the House and that it helps him in what he needs to do next. Article 41 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations states that diplomats need to
“respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.”
Article 9 states that the receiving state has the right to declare that person “persona non grata” at any time with no explanation. The Crown Prosecution Service then says that that is done when the police have sufficient evidence to justify court proceedings. Given the video and the admission, the lack of action by the Government is frankly laughable at this point. This is now a political decision. Can the Minister explain why he is not making them persona non grata now?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady quotes the convention, and it is very interesting, but she skated over the key phrase, which is when police have “sufficient” evidence, and we are not in that position yet. When we are, as I have assured the House, there will be consequences if that evidence proves to be dispositive.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I understand that my right hon. Friend is a diplomat, but does he not understand that if this assault took place on the streets of this country, the individuals responsible would be in prison cells and before magistrates? The situation is therefore very simple: every single day that those responsible remain on these shores is a disgrace and a stain on our society. Can we not take the decision now to encourage my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to expel the people responsible today?
Jesse Norman
I fully recognise that the House has a very strong view of this, but if this apparent offence had taken place elsewhere on the streets of the United Kingdom, it would be subject to the same kind of police investigation and determination and, potentially, a prosecution as a result.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post, because I know him to be a decent, intelligent and honourable man. He talks of diplomatic niceties, but the time for diplomatic niceties is long, long past. Does he think that the Chinese Government care about diplomatic niceties? Of course, what the Minister should be doing is saying to the ambassador, “Get yourself back to Britain, so that you can meet with the Minister. If you don’t get back, it will be a Minister who will be meeting with the chargé d’affaires on Monday morning, or preferably tomorrow, and, for that matter, we will be expelling the consul general tomorrow because he has clearly been engaged in something that would have got him arrested if it had happened on the streets of the United Kingdom.”
Jesse Norman
The fact of the matter is that we have already laid out an approach to this. As I said, the last time an ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Secretary was in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are diplomatic channels through which these things occur, and we need to respect them. As regards the question of arrest, an individual might have been arrested, or they might not have been; that is at the discretion of the police. That remains the case whether they are outside the embassy or on any other parts of our streets.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Can the Minister outline what tangible steps have been taken to protect the Hong Kong community, Tibetans and Uyghurs from intimidation, threats and actual use of violence from the Chinese state on UK soil—tangible steps?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have opened the British national overseas channel. We have offered support from the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and those individuals remain under the rule of law and therefore the purview of the police, as would any other residents in this country.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The right to protest is a British value that stems from 1819 and the Peterloo massacre in our great city, which is why this Government’s inaction is gnawing at our moral core. Powerlessness corrupts, and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely; the Government are being sclerotic in this case, if that is not part of the wider malaise. However, I too know the Minister to be an honourable man, so in that spirit can he tell us what discussions he has had with either the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the leader of Manchester City Council or Greater Manchester police to reassure the people in our great city that action will be taken?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman is a Manchester MP and I respect the force of his passion on this issue. As with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), there is nothing more deadly than when a member of the Opposition is kind about the gentleman at the Dispatch Box, so I am aware of the danger there. I would correct the hon. Gentleman on the issue of the rule of law and due process in this country; it goes back way before Peterloo, and one would think of the codification or formalisation of legal changes in the 17th century, if not earlier. He also brilliantly misquotes Lord Acton. On Greater Manchester police, that is a matter for the Home Office, but I can be absolutely certain, as can he, that they will be following the debate with considerable interest.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Minister characterised the consul general’s comment that it was his “duty” to commit an act of violence as absurd. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, whom I like very much, I think it was sinister and menacing. It is not just that this House cares about seeing the consul general and others involved in this incident facing immediate diplomatic consequences, as he calls them. Hong Kong nationals now obtaining refuge in my constituency also need reassurance that the Government take their security seriously. As long as those people remain in Manchester and in this country, they do not have that reassurance.
Jesse Norman
If I may say so, I do not think the hon. Lady is right about the position I have taken. We have been perfectly clear about the concern felt across interested bodies, parties and groups in the UK, particularly Hong Kong residents here and people who have come from Hong Kong. That is why I ended my statement with a very specific message of support to them. I have also outlined to the House the measures that we have put in place in the other Departments focused on those people. It is true that they too would expect to live under the rule of law and our police, and in general Greater Manchester police do a sterling job, as I am sure any Manchester MP would say, of protecting the wellbeing of the people of Manchester. I am sure that they will continue to extend that privilege, courtesy and protection to Hong Kong residents.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I was not going to intervene until I listened to the Minister’s responses. There can be no question here of a failure of the Manchester police. No one would have expected a bunch of thugs to come running out of an embassy and beat people up on the streets of Britain. Will the Minister think for a minute about how that appears and how his answers make our country look? We look supine and weak. The evidence is absolutely clear, and he should be stating that and making it clear that the Government will act, and act swiftly. I get no urgency from the Minister.
Jesse Norman
I am afraid that is hopelessly untrue. We take this matter extremely seriously: we are acting on it, we have had two urgent questions on the matter and we have different Departments engaged and involved. I have also now had it confirmed to me that officials have been in touch with Greater Manchester police and will remain so. Of course I mean no criticism of anyone in that fine, august body of policemen and policewomen; we continue to look to them to maintain the kinds of standards of policing that they always have done in that city.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It strikes me that there is no dubiety in this House about the appalling scenes we have all witnessed. As a signatory to the Sino-British joint declaration, the UK has not only a diplomatic but a moral responsibility to the people of Hong Kong, especially the large numbers who came to the UK under the new visa scheme. Does the Minister not accept that there is a need for clear action to make sure that Hong Kong people, Uyghurs and Tibetans feel safe and valued here?
Jesse Norman
Of course I do. The hon. Lady may recall that on Tuesday, I announced that the British national overseas channel had been extended to include adult relatives of those who are already entitled to its benefits. I have also outlined to the House not just our very warm and enthusiastic embrace of the people of Hong Kong through that channel, but the measures and Departments responsible for protecting those people in this country. Again, I send a very strong message to Hongkongers in this country: we massively respect and warmly embrace you, and will of course continue to protect and look to your safety.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It has been quite difficult to listen to these answers—I say that with great respect for the Minister—because we do not really feel that the issue is being dealt with strongly enough. The Minister will be aware that this latest travesty is one in a long list of despicable attacks on innocent people that have arguably taken place at the hands of those in power in China. Will he commit to meet the ambassador and highlight the fact that taking someone from British soil into the Chinese consulate to physically and violently abuse them is disgraceful and will not be tolerated, and that those involved—including the ambassador—will be sent home immediately?
Jesse Norman
I am an enormous fan and admirer of the hon. Gentleman, but we have covered that question quite closely on several occasions during this urgent question. We will take the measures I have outlined, which are a clear extension of the work we are already doing, both in this country and in Beijing. We will await the factual determination on the evidence, and will then take action, if that is required.
East Kent Maternity Services: Independent Investigation
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Caroline Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the review into East Kent maternity services.
Few things could be as tragic as the death of a child, yet knowing that that death was “wholly avoidable” comes with its own unimaginable pain. It is thanks to the tireless efforts, courage and determination of families in east Kent that we have been able to shine a light on maternity failings in East Kent Hospitals University Trust. Dr Bill Kirkup’s report, published yesterday, contains some stark and upsetting findings. From examining over 200 births in that trust between 2009 and 2020, he found that, had care been given at nationally recognised standards, 45 babies might not have lost their lives, and many more families might not have experienced such distress at what should have been their time of joy. He also found a toxic culture within the trust, with a
“disturbing lack of kindness and compassion”
and victims’ families even blamed for their devastating losses. Before I say more, Mr Speaker, I want to say this: I am profoundly sorry to all the families affected. This should never have happened, and we will work tirelessly to put it right.
With the report having been published just yesterday, I am sure hon. Members will understand our need to carefully consider all of its details. I will be reviewing all the recommendations, and will issue a full response once I have had time to consider them. However, given the gravity of what the report reveals, I felt it was important to come to the House today and update colleagues on the steps we are already taking to improve maternity services in east Kent and across the country.
The report itself is a litany of failure that makes for very difficult reading. It details failures of team working, failures of professionalism, failures of compassion, failures to listen, failures after safety incidents, and ultimately a failure of leadership. The review heard about women and family members feeling patronised, ignored or told off, with one woman hearing from a doctor:
“Some parents just aren’t supposed to have children.”
Some people felt they were unimportant, or too much trouble. One woman was reportedly told by a staff member that they were sorry for her loss, but that her baby was dead, and that there were other babies who were still living who needed attending to. These kinds of failures showed up at every level of patient care, with no discernible improvement over the whole timeframe of the review. The trust failed to read the signals and missed every opportunity to put things right.
These are difficult things to hear, and especially hard because I know that so many of us have experienced for ourselves the brilliant care that NHS maternity services can offer. We must take nothing away from the hundreds of thousands of incredible people working day and night in maternity services across the country, yet we cannot pretend that the story of East Kent is a one-off. Reviews from Morecambe Bay and Shrewsbury and Telford paint a more disturbing picture. While they may be some of the most extreme examples—and we must hope that they are—they are certainly not isolated incidents. Colleagues will know that, just last month, Donna Ockenden began her independent review into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust.
We entrust the NHS with our care when we are at our most vulnerable. Everyone has the right to expect the same high-quality care, no matter who they are or where they live. We are already taking a number of steps to improve the quality of maternity care in East Kent and across the country. An intensive programme of maternity support was put in place at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust in September 2019, overseen by NHS England, the Kent and Medway integrated care system and the trust’s board. The trust has been allocated a maternity improvement adviser and an obstetric improvement adviser. We will also continue to ensure the highest standards at national level.
I am grateful to Dr Kirkup for the extensive recommendations in his report, but it is vital that they are not viewed in isolation. As Dr Kirkup said, since his Morecambe bay investigation in 2015,
“maternity services have been the subject of more significant policy initiatives than any other service”,
so his recommendations must be considered alongside existing work to improve maternity outcomes.
First, there is our independent working group. The group is one of the key immediate and essential actions from the Ockenden review and has begun its important work. The group, chaired by the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is advising the maternity transformation programme in England on how it can take forward the findings of both the Ockenden and the Kirkup reports. Next, our new maternity quality surveillance framework is a vital tool for proactively identifying problems in trusts, so that they can get support before serious issues arise. In March 2022, NHS England announced a £127 million funding boost for maternity services across England, to help ensure safer and more personalised care for women and their babies. Even with that essential work, we recognise that there is still a long way to go and much more work to be done to put things right.
In closing, I want to thank Dr Kirkup and his team. His experience has been invaluable, and I know that his approach of putting families first has been welcomed. I also know that hearing the accounts of families has been a harrowing experience at times, yet, as he said, it is difficult to imagine just how much harder it was for the families as they relived some of their darkest days. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to those families, whose tireless determination to find the truth and tell their stories has brought us to this important point. Nothing we do can bring back the children they have lost or fill the tragic void of a life never lived, but now we know their stories, we will listen, learn and act, so that no other family should ever experience such pain. I commend this statement to the House.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I thank Dr Bill Kirkup and his team for the report. Today marks another milestone for another group of families in their fight for justice. The heartbreak they must feel is unimaginable, and my thoughts remain with them during what must be an incredibly difficult time.
Sadly, this is another example of women’s voices not just being ignored but being silenced. When women in East Kent were told that they were to blame for their babies’ deaths, they were being told that their voices just did not matter. At a time when women are at their most vulnerable, they were let down by the very people they were relying on to keep them safe.
After responding to the Ockenden review of Shrewsbury and Telford, I find myself having to repeat something that I never thought I would need to say again at this Dispatch Box: no woman should ever face going into hospital to give birth not knowing whether she and her baby will come out alive—no one. It is not a case of a few bad apples. What happened at East Kent, as with what happened at Shrewsbury and Telford and at Morecambe Bay, was years of systemic negligence that cost lives. As we have heard, up to 45 babies could have survived had they received better care. That is 45 lives that were cut needlessly short and 45 families made to suffer the most devastating heartache.
Although I am heartbroken for the families that the review had to take place, it is vital that it did. Nobody who allowed this culture of neglect to set in should escape accountability. Such a review has been necessary again because, for too long, people turned a blind eye and tolerated the intolerable. That is why it cannot be allowed to sit on the Department’s shelf and gather dust. We must see action if we are to give women the care that they need and deserve.
There is a pattern of avoidable harm in maternity units across the country. There were nearly 2,000 reported cases of avoidable harm at Shrewsbury and Telford. Half of maternity units in England are failing to meet safety standards. Pregnant women were turned away from maternity wards more than 400 times last year. One in four women is unable to get the help they need when in labour. That is why it is important that the Government fully accept all the recommendations in Dr Kirkup’s review without delay.
This is a collective failure and we must all learn lessons from it. In the wake of the Ockenden review, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) announced an extra £127 million of funding for maternity services to help to deliver the reform that is clearly needed. Where is that money? Where has it been spent, what has it been spent on and how will its impact be measured?
Underpinning the issues in maternity care, and across the NHS, is the workforce. More midwives are leaving the profession than are joining, and there is now a shortage of more than 2,000 midwives in England. We just do not have the staff needed to provide good and safe care. Even the Chancellor agrees: last week, he signed a report as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss that describes maternity and neonatal services as
“understaffed, overstretched and letting down women, families and maternity staff”.
He went on to call for safe levels of staffing. Will the Minister deliver on the Chancellor’s promise?
The Government must provide the staff that maternity services desperately need to provide safe care across our NHS, as Labour has a plan to. All women are asking for is to have the confidence that they will be safe—that really is not much. It is high time that the Government delivered it.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. The report paints a tragic and harrowing picture of poor maternity care at East Kent Hospitals. She talks about accountability. She will be aware that the chief executive and chairman of that trust board have changed, and that those new in their posts are working hard to ensure that things are turned around and improve.
The hon. Lady talked about funding and workforce. I understand why she did that, but if she reads Dr Kirkup’s report, it is clear that they were not causative factors in this case. This was about culture and workplace practice, not money and staffing levels. She also asked how that money has been spent. It has been spent on staffing, workforce and training. She also asked about culture change and how that will be measured. It is being looked at in several ways, particularly in terms of the outcomes, such as healthy babies and the mother’s experience of their care.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Mr Speaker, first, thank you so much for facilitating this statement. You know that as not just the constituency Member of Parliament, but a father and a grandfather, this is a matter of profound importance to me personally. Can I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time and thank her for the tone of her remarks?
Nothing is going to bring back the children who were lost in the Margate unit. Nothing is going to erase the pain felt and continuing to be felt by the parents. I would like to commend them for the quiet dignity with which they have fought their cause under horrific circumstances for so long. I would also like, if I may, craving your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to thank Bill Kirkup and his team for the sensitivity with which they have handled this and listened to the harrowing stories from so many people—stories that should never have had to be told.
What we can do is to try to put this right, so that this never ever happens to another family again. It will come at a cost and, with a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench, I have to say that £33 million-worth of investment is now needed immediately in the maternity unit at Margate. What I would like to do at this stage is to ask my hon. Friend to tell me from the Dispatch Box that she is willing to bring her medical expertise, which is considerable, to Margate, and to come herself to see the unit, meet the staff and meet the new chief executive and the new chairman, who are determined to do their utmost to make amends and to do so as swiftly as possible.
Dr Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I note that he has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, and I know how much it matters to him personally, as well as as a Member of Parliament. I would of course be happy to come to Margate to meet the staff he describes.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, Dr Kirkup and his team, and the families and staff who took part in the inquiry. It is clear that there has been an utterly toxic and dysfunctional culture within maternity services at the East Kent hospitals trust. It is shocking and disturbing, and made so much worse by the revelation that the trust tried to cover up these cases. Mothers were treated appallingly and babies died. I cannot comprehend what they have had to endure, and I am so angry on their behalf. How can the Minister assure my constituents that action leading to immediate change will not involve any of the staff and managers involved directly in these cases? And given that former staff and a governor have said publicly that they cannot recommend the service, how can MPs in East Kent tell our constituents that our maternity services are now safe?
Dr Johnson
I know that this is a matter on which the hon. Lady has been campaigning furiously on behalf of her constituents. I share her anger, and her shock when I read the report, at some of the cases and some of the ways in which patients have been spoken to during their time at their hospital. It is truly unforgivable.
On the question of safety, that was my first question when I read the report: are we sure that patients going in today to have their babies are safe to do so? So I met Anne Eden, the regional director of NHSE, yesterday to talk to her about safety, and I have been reassured about both quality and outcomes. On outcomes, I have been reassured that, looking at crude data, which I appreciate has not been published yet, the numbers of stillbirths and neonatal deaths over the last year or so have fallen substantially. On quality, it is doing a review, so each woman is contacted six weeks after her delivery to ask about her experiences, and where experiences have not been as they should be—although they are in almost all cases—that has been further investigated in each case.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
This report is a terrible read, particularly, obviously, for bereaved parents, who have gone through untold anguish, including some at the William Harvey Hospital in my constituency. What makes me particularly angry is that this was going on for more than a decade under several different management regimes at the trust. Can the Minister give some reassurance to women in Ashford who are about to have a baby at the William Harvey that they will be treated safely and respectfully, and can she assure the House, looking further afield, that the terrible repeated examples of similar tragedies and scandals around the NHS are now at an end?
Dr Johnson
I know that my right hon. Friend shares the House’s desire to ensure that such events do not reoccur, and that his constituents are safe. He asked about failures over time. In fact, there were signs as early as 2010 that problems were being raised with the trust. The failure was not so much to find those problems, but that they were not properly dealt with when they were found. Yesterday, I received assurances from the regional director of NHS England, as I described a few moments ago, and I will meet her regularly to receive updates to ensure that the process is not just put in place but followed through.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The stories of the families are harrowing to read. I hear what the Minister says: that staff shortages cannot be used to excuse the poor practice that has taken place. None the less, it is disturbing that NHS England has abandoned its safety targets under the midwifery continuity of care model. When more midwives are leaving the profession than coming into it, as a matter of urgency to avoid such occurrences in other places, what are the Government going to do to turn around that loss of midwives?
Dr Johnson
NHS England has announced that it is investing an additional £127 million into the maternity system in the next year. That money will go towards the maternity workforce and improving neonatal care. In addition, £95 million was invested last year to support the establishment of more than 1,200 more midwifery posts and 100 more consultant obstetric posts. Work is already under way as part of the biggest nursing, midwifery and allied health care professional recruitment drive in decades. That will help us to increase the number of midwives in East Kent but also elsewhere.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and particularly for the tone in which she made it. Dr Kirkup’s report is harrowing reading, but nothing compared with the harrowing experiences of the parents whose babies were severely injured at birth, stillborn, or lost in the days after they were born, particularly when so many of those incidents were avoidable. It is a shocking litany of clinical and management mistakes, missed opportunities, failures to take responsibility and an incomprehensible normalisation of baby death, despite all the efforts to improve safety since the Mid Staffs scandal. I ask my hon. Friend to put herself in the shoes of an expectant mum—I know that as a mum she will be able to do that, as well as from her experience as a clinician—and categorically assure me and all the parents to be who are soon to have babies in the East Kent trust, that the maternity units in those hospitals are safe for them to give birth?
While there are worthwhile sections on actions in the report—I commend Dr Kirkup for his report—it does not get to the bottom of the problem, which is truly one of accountability. Can my hon. Friend assure me that never again will a trust find reasons to excuse catastrophic outcomes, that never again can critical reports be dismissed as a “load of rubbish”, and that never again can staff blame patients for a hospital’s failings? How will she assure herself as a Minister—I know this is a difficult role—that every maternity unit in every hospital across the country is safe for mothers to give birth?
Dr Johnson
I know my hon. Friend has campaigned hard as both a Minister and a Back-Bench MP for safety in the national health service. On safety at the East Kent trust, we have already talked about the regional team there. There is also a maternity safety support team in the trust working actively on the ground to ensure that lessons are learned and services improved. I have been given some figures that demonstrate that the outcomes are improving. As I said earlier, steps are in place to ensure the quality of service and to feed back the quality of service to ensure that no woman is spoken to in the way described in the report.
From a wider perspective, we are looking at both the workforce as described but also at how we ensure that problems are not just picked up, but developed and followed through. We are also looking at the Kark report that looked at how managers are held responsible. We will talk more about that in due course.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have raised the point that black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth. Can the Minister explain what action is being taken to end that scandal?
Dr Johnson
From a wider perspective, the Government have a target of reducing stillbirths and neonatal deaths across the country and that, obviously, includes women of colour.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
What was particularly shocking about the report, coming hard on the heels of Shrewsbury and Morecambe Bay, was the culture of cover-up that it revealed, the lack of empathy—extraordinarily—among staff and the fact that it took parents and grandparents such as Derek Richford to campaign to get the exposé. Does the Minister agree that, given that liveborn children were described as being stillborn so coroners could not investigate, it underlines yet again the need for my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which was passed by the House three and a half years ago and gives powers to coroners to investigate stillbirths, to come into force at last? Will she go and speak to the Justice Secretary and liaise between the Departments to get that measure enacted straightaway to give some confidence to those parents who have been through these terrible experiences?
Dr Johnson
I understand my hon. Friend’s passion in this area. I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
We have seen several tragedies in health and social care services across the country. Both the Ockenden review earlier this year and this recent upsetting report by Dr Kirkup highlight serious multiple failings. It should go without saying that health outcomes should never be determined by location. We must tackle the inequalities that exist between rural and urban maternity services to ensure that people living in rural and coastal areas can access the same range of birthing methods and support. Will the Minister support the Maternity Services (Rural Areas) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) to end maternity service inequalities for people living in rural and coastal areas?
Dr Johnson
As a rural Member of Parliament, I understand the need for rural services to be just as good as those in more urban areas and to ensure that they are improved where they are not adequate. A medical education reform programme that is co-sponsored by NHS England and Health Education England is expected to direct investment for specialty training more towards area population need—to smaller and rural hospitals. The programme entered its implementation phase in August. Morecambe Bay, East Kent, James Paget and Shrewsbury and Telford are included in our current smaller hospitals list. I am not certain about the hospital in the hon. Member’s constituency, but I can find that information and write to him about it.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
This is clearly a shocking and disturbing report. I found myself agreeing with the shadow Minister when she said that this represents a serious collective failure across our maternity services, because I know that it is not an isolated incident. Does the Minister agree that there is a role to be played by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which has set up a stream of work on maternity services? Could she redouble her efforts in conjunction with that body to ensure that we learn the lessons of the cultural failures in this case and that that learning is spread throughout the system? That is the only way we have an opportunity to ensure that these things do not happen again.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend will be aware that within HSIB the Government are establishing a new special health authority specifically for maternity investigations, with specialist expertise. This independent body will continue the work of HSIB from 2023. In the meantime, maternity investigations will continue without interruption until it is fully operational.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. We are very pleased to have her expertise and knowledge in that role as Minister. This House will benefit from it. I would also like to express, on behalf of myself and my party, my sincere sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones. I think it is fair to say that we all have those families in our thoughts and prayers. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with devolved health trusts in the devolved nations to share information and ensure UK-wide reform? It is clear that the pressures that led to this terrible scenario in Kent are ready to be replicated through the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as midwives battle with understaffed, unsupported and exhausted wards that are on the brink of life-and-death disasters. Through no fault of individuals, midwives will carry that all to their graves. I know the Minister is committed to making it better. How can we do that for all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Dr Johnson
It is, of course, important that information is shared across our great country, so that people in all areas of our nation get the best-quality care. Health is a devolved issue, but I will continue to work with Ministers from the devolved nations to ensure we share the lessons and learn from each other.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My constituent Helen Gittos, whose healthy full-term daughter Harriet died in 2014, said:
“Too often during pregnancy, in labour and afterwards, rather than being listened to, we were treated dismissively, contemptuously and without a desire for understanding. It is hard enough to come to terms with the death of a child; it is even harder when you are implicitly blamed for what happened.”
Will the Minister commit to ensuring the implementation of all five recommendations, to beginning the process of doing so by recess, and to making an oral statement to the House detailing what progress has been made, again by recess?
Dr Johnson
I know my hon. Friend shares my horror at the report and my horror at the way women and their families were treated at East Kent maternity hospitals. The report was published only yesterday. I will be considering it very, very carefully and will further update the House in due course.
Ukraine Update
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
We are now 239 days into the operation that President Putin planned to conclude within a month. Active Ukrainian offensive operations continue in the north-east, near Svatove and the Kherson region in the south. If Ukraine successfully advances on Svatove, a key road and rail junction, it will constitute another severe blow to the logistical viability of the northern sector of Russia’s Donbas front. Yesterday, the new Russian commander in Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin, offered an unusually candid public statement of the difficulty of the Russian position in Kherson, on the right bank of the Dnipro River. Pro-Russian occupation forces have now started to withdraw some categories of civilians east of the river. They claim 7,000 people have already departed, and aim to move another 10,000 a day, although we cannot yet verify those figures. Russia’s limited hold on the bank of the Dnipro looks shaky. It is likely more seriously considering a draw-down of its forces in the area.
Russia’s ground campaign is being reversed. It is running out of modern long-range missiles and its military hierarchy is floundering. It is struggling to find junior officers to lead the rank and file. Meanwhile, its latest overall commander, Surovikin, has a 30-year record of thuggery marked even by the standards of the Russian army. What will worry President Putin is that the open criticism is inching closer and closer to the political leadership of his country. Russia has strong-armed Belarus into facilitating its disastrous war, but the newly announced Russian-Belarusian “Group of Forces”, supposedly to be deployed in Belarus, is unlikely to be a credible offensive force. It is far more likely that Russia is attempting to divert Ukrainian forces from their successful counter-offensives.
As Russia’s forces are pushed back, they are resorting to directly striking Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure, especially the power grid. It should be noted that these facilities have no direct military role, but the impact is multiplying the misery of ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Notably, these strikes are partially being conducted by loitering munitions—so-called “kamikaze drones”. Despite Tehran’s denials, these weapons are being provided by Iran. This, in itself, is another sign of the strategic degradation of Russia’s military.
In the wake of these ongoing and indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the UK will continue—and is continuing—to gift air defence missiles to Ukraine. We are proud to be the second largest donor of military equipment, and last week I announced that the UK will provide additional air defence missiles to Ukraine to defend against Russian missile strikes. These include AMRAAMs—advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles —which, used in conjunction with NASAMS—national advanced surface-to-air missile system—air defence, pledged by the United States, are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. We continue to provide sophisticated electronic warfare equipment that gives additional protection against long-range drones and missiles.
Supporting Ukraine remains the Ministry of Defence’s main effort. We are helping Ukraine to replenish its stocks to keep us fighting. As winter approaches, we are developing a package to support Ukrainians through the winter, including 25,000 sets of winter clothing, so that they are more effective on the battlefield than their poorly trained, badly prepared and ill-equipped Russian counterparts, many of whom have been mobilised at short notice with little training, equipment or preparation.
As part of Operation Interflex, we are also continuing to train Ukrainian recruits in the United Kingdom alongside our Canadian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Lithuanian, New Zealand, Norwegian and Swedish partners. We have so far trained over 7,000 soldiers and are currently on track to train 10,000 by the end of the year, with up to 20,000 to follow in 2023.
Furthermore, we have worked with allies and partners to establish an international fund, which will ensure the continued supply of essential lethal and non-lethal military support to Ukraine, as well as manufacturing capacity. To date, we have received pledges totalling approximately £600 million and continue to work with international partners to secure further funding. Today, we will launch the first urgent bidding round to identify and procure critical capabilities that can be rapidly deployed to Ukraine.
I would also like to share with the House details of a recent incident that occurred in international airspace over the Black sea. On 29 September, an unarmed RAF RC-135W Rivet Joint, a civilian ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—aircraft on routine patrol over the Black sea was interacted with by two Russian armed Su-27 fighter aircraft. It is not unusual for aircraft to be shadowed and this day was no different. During that interaction, however, it transpired that one of the Su-27 aircraft released a missile in the vicinity of the RAF Rivet Joint aircraft beyond visual range. The total time of the interaction between the Russian aircraft and the Rivet Joint was approximately 90 minutes.
The patrol completed and the aircraft returned to its base. In the light of this potentially dangerous engagement, I have communicated my concerns directly to my Russian counterpart, Defence Minister Shoigu, and my colleague, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has also communicated his concerns. In my letter, I made it clear that the aircraft was unarmed, in international airspace, and following a pre-notified flight path. I felt that it was prudent to suspend these patrols until a response was received by the Russian state.
The reply by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 10 October stated that it has conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the incident and that it was a technical malfunction of the Su-27 fighter. It also acknowledged that the incident took place in international airspace. The UK Ministry of Defence has shared this information with allies and, after consultation, I have restarted routine patrols, but this time escorted by fighter aircraft.
Everything that we do is considered and calibrated with regard to ongoing conflict in the region and in accordance with international law. We welcome Russia’s acknowledgment that the incident was in international airspace. The UK has conducted regular sorties of the RAF Rivet Joint in international airspace over the Black sea since 2019, and we will continue to do so. For security reasons, I will not provide further commentary on the detail of these operations, but I want to assure the House that the incident will not prevent the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine and resistance to Russia’s illegal invasion.
The UK Government’s position remains unchanged, with—I am pleased to say—consistent support across the House. We will continue to support the Ukrainian people to defend their homeland. The rules-based system has protected all nations from such naked and unprovoked aggression over the past 75 years; it has also been shaped by Russia in that time. This Government will always defend the rules-based system, because it is fundamental to who we are. It provides peace and security for this country and for our partners and allies. I commend this statement to the House.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. At a time of much Government chaos, I also thank him for his calmness and professionalism in the job.
The incident with the RAF Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft that the Defence Secretary described is serious. He outlines that the correct steps have been taken, the malfunction has been confirmed and the incident has now been resolved. It is welcome that RAF flights have restarted and that there has been a clear recognition from Russia that the aircraft was flying in international airspace. The RAF has this House’s full support; we are grateful to it, to other UK forces and to our NATO allies for their work protecting the alliance and protecting freedom. The incident is a serious reminder of the importance of avoiding escalation and miscalculation while continuing with the UK’s united support for Ukraine.
Almost eight months on from Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine, I pay tribute to the remarkable and continuing Ukrainian resolve in the face of Russian aggression. Putin has made a huge strategic miscalculation in invading Ukraine, which has resulted in Russian forces suffering heavy losses: the MOD estimates 25,000 Russian dead, tens of thousands injured, tens of thousands who have deserted and more than 4,000 armoured and protected vehicles destroyed.
At a time when Ukrainians have shown incredible resilience in defending their homeland, Britain must honour their bravery by remaining unwavering in our support for Ukraine. I am grateful that the Defence Secretary has set out the UK’s continued support under Operation Interflex for training Ukrainian forces; we thank UK members of the armed forces for their work. I would also be grateful if he confirmed when the promised action plan for continuing UK support for Ukraine will be published, outlining the type and quantity of military, economic and diplomatic support that Ukraine will receive. Putin needs to be in no doubt that our resolve will continue; whether the Defence Secretary’s party or mine is in charge, that will not change.
I think it is time the Defence Secretary made a statement about the planned drawback of troops from Estonia and about how that decision can be properly scrutinised. I would also be grateful if he set out whether orders have been placed for the replacement next-generation light anti-tank weapon missiles and when our stockpiles will be replenished.
There has been a concerning increase in Iranian drone activity. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State set out what additional support can be provided by the UK and our allies to ensure that the Shahed 136 and Mohajer 6 drones from Iran can be properly intercepted and defeated to protect Ukrainian infrastructure.
In his speech last night, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, threw into doubt the planned rise in defence spending to 3% of GDP, referring to it as a “potential increase”. I would be grateful if the Defence Secretary spelled out the Government’s position on defence spending and whether the increase is confirmed or—as Admiral Sir Tony Radakin says—only potential.
The Opposition’s support for Ukraine is unwavering. The Defence Secretary knows that he has Labour’s full support in the provision of military aid to our friends in Ukraine. Putin must fail in his aggression. As we enter an incredibly difficult period of the war, with cold weather drawing in, we must make sure that we support not only our friends fighting in Ukraine, but those civilians who are there fighting on its behalf. I would be grateful if the Defence Secretary set out what support the UK can offer to civilian infrastructure. The protection of energy sources is particularly important, not only for Ukrainian industry but for the Ukrainian people.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. To assure the House, I did not choose to make my statement when my counterpart on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was not here; I spoke to him at length yesterday. I also assure the House that although there are some things that are of the highest sensitivity and cannot be said in public or in this House, I continue to engage with the party leaders on the most sensitive areas to ensure that they are fully apprised throughout this process.
Calibration is incredibly important to me. We are dealing with a President and with Russian forces who, as we have seen from the Rivet Joint incident, are not beyond making the wrong calculation or deciding that the rules do not apply to them. That is why I ask those constituents who are fearful that this report could lead somewhere to have faith that all of us in this Chamber are working on a detailed response to ensure that we walk what is sometimes a tightrope.
On Rivet Joint, as I said, we have made sure that the flight path is pre-declared, so that it is no surprise to the Russians and is logged in the normal manner. Indeed, I informed the Russians that they would be escorted, so there were no surprises.
The shadow Minister asked about the action plan; I think he was referring to the broader Government action plan, including foreign aid and support. I concur that the foreign aid package and helping Ukraine’s economy to survive, stand on its feet and go from strength to strength are as important as an effective military response. I will press my colleagues in other Departments to ensure that we get the shadow Minister details of the time and date, but it is a fundamental plank for Ukraine. Some of what I discussed when I was in the United States was in that area.
On the second battlegroup deployed in Estonia, hon. Members will remember that after the invasion a number of countries deployed what we called enhanced forward presence groups in Bulgaria, in Romania and around Europe. There was some talk about deployment in Hungary, but that did not materialise. Germany stepped up in Lithuania, and so did we in Estonia. The second battlegroup was always going to come back; our fixed position in Estonia is effectively a battlegroup that we vary in size and capability. To recognise the changed threat, we will keep our guided multiple launch rocket system, our longer-range deep fires and indeed our air defence capabilities, which are not always an accompaniment to that battlegroup. We have effectively beefed up the existing battlegroup, but we need to bring back the next battlegroup, which has been extended for another six months. I thank the men and women of the armed forces whose time out there has been extended. That battle- group will come back.
We should not forget that we also have a squadron of tanks in Poland, more forces, a company—a sort of small battlegroup—in Bulgaria, part of a US strike brigade, and we are now exploring having more Royal Engineers in Poland to assist with training Ukrainians and with things like combat engineers. That is why the battlegroup came back. I engage with my Estonian counterparts, whom I met only last week; indeed, I met them the week before in Poland to talk them through this, and they were given prior notification. We are very keen to continue to work strongly with them.
We have given an extra commitment on Estonia to have a brigade headquarters and a brigadier. In the same way, the German plan in Lithuania is to allocate a brigade for fast response to deploy, and that is one of the ways we seek to go. We are also helping Estonia to develop its own divisional headquarters, hand in hand, but we always keep things under review. We are all waiting for the NATO regional plans that will set out in detail how our forces should be deployed across Europe as part of a bigger comprehensive plan. It is really important for us all to be guided by that.
The Ukrainians are having success in shooting down a number of the Iranian drones, but it is a question of sheer scale. Members will not have missed the similarity with V1 rockets. I urge the Iranian Government to understand that supplying Russia so that it can indiscriminately kill civilians, including women, children and babies in prams, is surely not an activity with which Iran wants to be associated. I urge them to desist as soon as possible. We are not at all convinced by the Iranian Government’s denials that they are not supplying the drones.
We will use some of the funding that I have mentioned to invest in other novel capabilities that we can find to deploy. In the meantime, we are continuing, and will step up, our supply of low-velocity missiles to Ukraine to work with the Stormer system and ensure that we can help with detection or electronic warfare schemes. Obviously the Ukrainian conflict has flushed out counter-drone technologies that we all need. Members will recall the Gatwick airport scenario. Everyone came up with magic solutions, but, if memory serves, when we tested them almost none of them did what it said on the tin. However, we are helping rapidly, and the best of innovation is being used to help the Ukrainians.
When I was in Washington, it was made very clear from No. 10 that the commitment on 3% of GDP by 2030 would stand. I should be interested to know whether the Labour party will match that important commitment. If Labour Members are getting ready for government, as they seem to think they are, these are the questions that they will need to answer for the British public and the British armed forces as they lay out their timetable and their plan. They will have at least two years in which to do it, so I am not too worried—[Interruption.] It is when I am guessing the election will be, but that is definitely above my pay grade.
As for how we can get the Ukrainians through the winter, we are all working internationally to see what we can do. The European Union has announced a fund, and we will ensure that we do what we can to help Ukraine with critical infrastructure and energy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his calmness, and for the consistency of his support for our friends in Ukraine. Our leadership on defence spending matters, and it is important that we meet the target of 2.5% of GDP by 2026, because between now and 2050 it is spending on, and investing in, artificial intelligence, quantum and other new technologies that will allow us best to protect ourselves from hostile states. However, I am concerned about the escalation over the Black sea. I know that my right hon. Friend has a close relationship with his Turkish counterpart. Can he please give us an insight into how he is working with our allies in Turkey and Romania to protect air policing?
Mr Wallace
One of the allies with which I discussed this incident was Turkey, at the time when it happened. I have a good and close relationship with the Turkish Government, and I will be visiting Turkey next week. The Turkish Government are aware of the position, and, as ever, offered as much assistance with this process as we wished.
We do not consider this incident to constitute a deliberate escalation on the part of the Russians, and our analysis concurs that it was due to a malfunction, but it is nevertheless a reminder of quite how dangerous things can be when you choose to use your fighters in the manner in which the Russians have used them. While this obviously involved the release of a weapon, we have seen very close flying next to United States, United Kingdom and NATO assets over the last few years. In one case, a Russian fighter went within 15 feet of a NATO aircraft. Such action is reckless and unnecessary, and puts many people’s lives at risk.
I am not naive. We are incredibly lucky that what we saw over the Black sea did not become worse. I am not trying to trivialise it, but we do not consider it to have been a deliberate escalation on the part of the Russian state.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) appreciates the collegiate way in which both he and his staff have acted throughout this crisis.
Understandably, much of the attention arising from the statement will be focused on the incident involving the RAF surveillance aircraft and the Russian Su-27 fighter which took place in international airspace during a pre-notified flight over the Black sea last week. I commend the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence for their calm and measured response to a situation that could easily and very quickly have escalated into something far more serious.
Of course, the situation in Ukraine is serious enough, with Putin having now declared martial law in the four newly annexed territories. That gives him a level of control over industries that could possibly be repurposed to support his illegal war effort. As the Secretary of State said, in recent days we have seen more Russian war crimes. Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure have been targeted with missiles, rockets and Iranian-made drones—which, I believe, makes Iran directly complicit in these war crimes. When will the Government follow the example of our US allies and EU partners in actively pursuing and sanctioning Iranian companies which have been involved in making those drones, as well as the individuals behind the companies? What, if anything, is being done to try to cut off the international supply of components to Iran?
Let me end by echoing what was said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). As winter approaches and we continue to provide military support, what thought has been given to protecting the civilian population? Is there scope for us to send more generators and specialist electricity equipment to help Ukraine to keep the lights and the heating on this winter?
Mr Wallace
That last point is extremely important. The Department of Health and Social Care has already done significant work in securing medical supplies during the conflict, but the hon. Gentleman prompts me to see what we can do in a more international, co-ordinated manner. I will, perhaps, write to him giving the details of that. He is right to say that this is going to be a tough winter, and we need to make sure that the Ukrainians can cope.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the calmness of the RAF. Incredibly professional men and women are doing an incredible job, and not only here. Some of those same aircraft, and the P-8s from Lossiemouth, go out to protect us in the very high north from aggression and Russian activity. It is often in Scotland that Russia enters our airspace with its long-range bombers and the patrols that it did not give up after the cold war. The difference that should be noted is that we were in international airspace. However, we try to retain a professional manner with Russia. It is important that we maintain that professional link with the Russian Ministry of Defence, and recognise that we can still have those important engagements at times like this.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Given the extraordinary success of the Ukrainian armed forces in pushing back Russian troops, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that Putin may consider escalating the conflict? While attention has focused on the potential use of battlefield nuclear weapons, does he agree that any use of chemical or biological weapons equally represents a red line which Putin must not cross?
Mr Wallace
When it comes to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the chemical weapons convention which all of us, including what are viewed as some of the key anchor countries, have signed up to—when chemical weapons were used in Syria, for instance, military action was taken by countries including ourselves and France—it is extremely important to uphold that convention. Breaking the taboo, or allowing it to be successfully broken, would have severe consequences for all of us. Similarly, the messaging is that the use of nuclear or chemical weapons would lead to severe consequences for the Russian state, and we urge that none of those be resorted to.
As for President Putin’s position, he has obviously made a number of speeches, and he has annexed illegally parts of countries that are still full of Ukrainian forces. His ambitions do not seem to match the realities on the ground. The key message to him is that we are interested in helping Ukraine to succeed in defeating Russia’s illegal invasion. If he understands what that is about, he should be able to calibrate his response so as to leave Ukraine in an orderly manner, and we can start the process of trying to rebuild that amazing country and ensuring that Russia is held accountable for its crimes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and his leadership during this difficult time. I also thank the members of our armed forces who are supporting our efforts in Ukraine and in eastern Europe, and, indeed, the civil servants behind the right hon. Gentleman in his Department.
In his statement, the Defence Secretary mentioned the Russians targeting drone attacks on civilians. Over the last few weeks, as the Ukrainians have gained ground, it has become clear that war crimes have been perpetrated against civilians and members of the armed forces in Ukraine. What expertise and support are we providing to enable the Ukrainians to log evidence and enable the individuals concerned to be brought to account?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. When the war crimes in Bucha and not far outside Kyiv were exposed, a group of us—including the United Kingdom, alongside the Canadians—began the process of gathering evidence for the International Criminal Court. My colleague the now former Home Secretary, who was then the Attorney General, visited Ukrainian herself, and worked with the then prosecutor. The Red Cross is also engaged in gathering such information. Its biggest challenge is the sheer scale of the amount of evidence that we are now uncovering.
The fact that Russia does not invade and occupy a country with any civility towards or regard for its people adds to the anxiousness of our friends in the Baltic states; Russia seems to destroy everything in its path. The worry of a small Baltic state is that it does not have time for the rest of us to get there. That is why we are committed to a battlegroup in Estonia. If we give Russia time, there will not be much left when we arrive. That is why we have to send a message that this course is unacceptable.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his calm yet robust response to the Rivet Joint Sukhoi incident, which is of course of great concern. I also pay tribute to the calmness and professionalism of the RAF crews during the incident.
Will the Secretary of State commit to continuing to keep under review the adequacy of the fighter forces we have available, bearing in mind the escort duties that he has now referred to as well as the ongoing combat air policing duties on NATO’s eastern front in any event?
Mr Wallace
Yes; making sure we have more aircraft fighter capability in this country has been one of my priorities. On almost my first day in the job, I sent a letter to the Chief of the Air Staff stating that his No. 1 priority was to improve the fighter pilot pipeline; there is no point in buying planes if there is no one to fly them. It is incredibly important that we get those pilots.
Of course one of the challenges with the new F-35 is growing instructors. It is a Catch-22: there have to be enough pilots in the planes to grow the instructor body, but if there are not enough pilots in the first place, how do we do that? We are getting there, and the situation is improving. The Typhoon is proving its worth every single week. I went to the ceremony to hand over to Qatar the next iteration of the Typhoon. It is a formidable aircraft, which I hope will be bought by many other countries around the world.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State touched on the help that we are providing. Will he elaborate on that? He talked about equipment. What are we doing to provide small diesel generators to ensure that key services such as hospitals or water cleaning plants keep going, given Russia’s attack on civilian infrastructure?
Mr Wallace
Non-lethal military aid is collected and corralled in the same place as military aid: through the international donor cell based in Germany—a multinational cell staffed predominantly by military and civil servants who collect the ask from Ukraine, which they try to match with donors. That is predominantly for military and non-lethal military aid, which includes generators, field hospitals and medical stuff. Predominantly, that is related to the war effort.
I will make sure that we write to the hon. Lady with the broader detail of what other assistance is happening. I visited Ukraine about three or four weeks ago. People there were in a pretty good mindset about their ability to see through the winter, but the use of Iranian mass drones will have an effect if it continues and we must make sure that that does not catch up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I forgot to answer the question about sanctions put by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). My understanding is that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement about that in the near future.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State on his statement and his ongoing handling of the UK response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine by President Putin.
I have long been of the view that spending on our armed forces should be viewed as an insurance policy to protect not only our security but our national interests. As with any insurance policy, when the risk profile increases so must the premiums. My right hon. Friend has already reconfirmed that the Government have committed to raising defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. Given the acute security situation in which we find ourselves at the moment, will he also commit to keeping that 2030 date under review?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right; I have often stood at the Dispatch Box and said that as the threat changes so must our investment and funding. That has been all too forgotten when it has come to defence during the last three decades, to be honest. It was interesting that we always understandably responded to pressures in the NHS or the financial markets, but that did not seem necessary when it came to threats. That is how we have ended up with a need to go up to 3% by 2030.
As long as I am Defence Secretary, I will keep the view that as the threat changes we should always review the issues. That is fair and consistent for the men and women of the armed forces. It also sends a strong message to people such as President Putin: that we mean what we say.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
In answer to the challenge from the Secretary of State, I can say that Labour Front Benchers are very ready for government—and by the way, his lot seem to be actively working to be ready for opposition.
The statement was helpful, but ignored the gorilla in the room. Earlier this week, the Secretary of State urgently flew to Washington DC for talks about the situation in Ukraine. There has been quite a bit of briefing in the media on what that may have been about. I fully understand the sensitivities, but surely it is owed to the House and indeed the nation for there to be some indication of how we and our allies see the conflict evolving.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I went to Washington ourselves in calmer times; it now seems decades ago. I was in opposition and he was in government, although he is well qualified to know what opposition is—sadly for him, he has probably spent more time in opposition than government.
There has been a lot of what I would describe as speculation rather than briefing about why I went to Washington; I noticed that yesterday two mainstream media publications gave different reasons for why I went. Fundamentally, President Putin makes his speeches, things change and we need to be absolutely prepared to discuss that with our closest allies. Sometimes it is important to do so in person. I thought it was important after the appointment of the new general, after President Putin’s speech about annexation and during the issues around Ukraine’s success on the battlefield and what that could mean for President Putin, his actions and what happens next.
It is important that we have such discussions in person. I went to the Pentagon and the State Department. I met the National Security Adviser and had other meetings to make sure that we all understand our planning processes about what we would do in the event of a whole range of things.
People should not be alarmed, but I hope they take comfort from the fact that my priority is, if necessary, getting on a plane to go and do that, not dealing with what is currently going on in our mainstream media.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Following the Defence Secretary’s recent visit to Washington and other travels, will he provide for the House a short assessment of the continuing resolve within NATO for supporting Ukraine, so that we can see this through?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend will have noticed two things in the last few weeks. First, we had our NATO Defence Ministers meeting last week. The resolve is absolutely rock solid. When it comes to the nuclear issue, the line is consistent that there would be severe consequences for Russia if it uses tactical nuclear weapons. Our commitment to responding to such issues and the threat they pose to the world order in breaking the nuclear taboo is determined and united.
My hon. Friend will also have noticed that the European Union has started to use much more hawkish phrases about this issue. That is because its member states are clearly resolved. They want this issue to be concluded successfully. They recognise that constituents in all our countries face higher food and energy prices because of what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker and more permanently we can solve that, the better for all of us. We can then get on and deal with the inflationary pressures and all the other stuff.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement; his transparency is welcome and serves to prevent misreporting of the Rivet Joint incident and inadvertent escalation. We in the Liberal Democrats would like to add that we also pay tribute to the professionalism, values and standards of the Royal Air Force and all our armed forces.
I particularly appreciate the Secretary of State’s recognition that communication is crucial to ensure that we avoid miscalculation. He said that he has communicated his concern directly to his Russian counterpart, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, and that the Chief of the Defence Staff has done the same using his channels. On 7 March this year, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said lines of communication were
“not as strong as we would want them to be”.
Can the Secretary of State comment on whether top-level lines of communication with Russian counterparts have deteriorated further or improved since then?
Mr Wallace
It is possible for us to communicate with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defence and the leadership of the Russian Government when we need to, and there is a constant capability to do that. That is not particularly easy across the international community at the moment, because General Gerasimov and Minister Shoigu are clearly engaged in the activity that has led us all to the House today, and they are busy doing that. Communication is possible, and I assure the House that, if it became impossible, I would seek other ways of making sure. I also have close allies and partners who can make calls, if necessary, and we utilise them where needed.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Given all that is happening in Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere in the world, does the Defence Secretary agree it is right that the Prime Minister has brought forward a commitment to reach defence expenditure of 2.5% of GDP by 2026? We cannot wait until 2030 to deal with the great threats we face now.
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, 2030 is the key point, because we have to pass through 2.5% to get to 3%. The reality is that we need to make sure that the rise to 3% is done sustainably. I cannot be given a blob of money in 2029 and be expected to buy a warship in five weeks. There has to be a proper, graduated response. I will make sure the response includes 2.5% en route to 3% of GDP.
It is also important to remind the House that being part of NATO helps us to achieve global mass, or certainly mass within the north Atlantic, and enables us to deploy very large numbers of troops, if necessary. On paper, NATO still far outnumbers Russian forces. Since Russia has significantly degraded nearly all of its land armed forces, the ratio is even more imbalanced in the favour of NATO.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It gives me great confidence that we have heard a competent and trusted Secretary of State and a competent and trusted shadow Secretary of State having an intelligent conversation about this issue, followed by a question and answer session. That is what our constituents expect to happen in Parliament, as opposed to recent events.
May I push the Defence Secretary a little? The credibility of our armed forces relies on how many men and women they have and, as he knows, many years ago I campaigned for a 100,000 minimum. I still have no answer on whether the 72,000 aim in the most recent Conservative party policy is still working. I support the 3% target for expenditure; and please can we have more aid going to the civilian population of the places that the Russian air force is bombarding?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If, at the end of this, we do not help Ukraine rebuild itself, it will all have been for nothing. It is important that, alongside the military response, we help Ukraine’s economy get on its feet. Ukraine has the means—it has agricultural produce, et cetera. As the hon. Gentleman says, Ukraine’s military and other values are different from Russia’s, but the economy, the poverty and all the other issues are also important.
On the credibility of our armed forces, we have to make sure that, whatever their size, our armed forces are properly protected, perfectly formed at the forefront of capabilities and able to interoperate and integrate with our biggest allies. That is as important as the size of our armed forces. Russia went for size, and its armed forces cannot talk to each other or defend themselves. For all Russia’s boasts about how many BMPs and T-72s it has, they all ended up dead or broken on the road to Kyiv.
There is an important balance to strike but, like the hon. Gentleman, I believe we also need to invest to deliver armed forces of scale so that we are able to be present around the world to deter our enemies, and so we can make choices about being in the Baltics and in Poland and in the Pacific and in Africa, where violent extremism is getting bigger and threatens the stability of Africa.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am having a meeting with the Treasury this afternoon. If he would like to come with me, I would be delighted to take him. We have been in the House together for many years, and he is formidable at delivering what he wishes to achieve. I also remember him being formidable to his own Front Bench at certain times when they needed to hear the right messages. He would be very welcome. If I could squeeze him into the Treasury meeting, I would.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I echo the comments of the whole House, including those of my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I praise my right hon. Friend for his leadership on the issues we have been facing in Ukraine and over the last few years.
Obviously, in addition to the supply of lethal and non-lethal weaponry and supplies, one of the big things the UK has been doing is helping to train Ukrainian forces. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how many Ukrainian troops have been trained so far by the UK’s training programmes and how many we plan to train in the coming year?
Mr Wallace
We have trained 7,000 so far. We are on target to complete 10,000, and then another 20,000-plus next year. It often depends on whether the Ukrainians are able to give us the training pipeline. Some of these people will be coming off the frontlines. It is always a challenge, but we are in the right position. We are well supported by the international community, and it is making a difference. We are now looking at what we can do with larger units, by helping Ukraine to train at company and battalion level. That would probably happen within Europe.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
In describing Russia’s increased targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which we learned this morning has led to restrictions on power supply, the Secretary of State referred to the sheer quantity of cruise missiles and drones that are being used in those attacks. Is it now a question of increasing the equipment and capability he has announced to the House today to enable Ukraine better to resist those attacks, or are there other capabilities—he referred to some—that could be supplied or that Ukraine has requested?
Mr Wallace
From the international community, for example, Ukraine has consistently requested some of Israel’s electronic warfare capability. It is regrettable that, at the moment, Israel has not chosen to do that. I will be seeing the Israeli ambassador in the next few weeks to try to press the case.
One of the challenges I have talked about is the proliferation of precision weapons into the hands of basically low-level troops. We have highly sophisticated, complex weapons that take months to make and were originally designed to shoot down fighter aircraft. When they are used against fairly cheap, mass drones, Ukraine will run out of them quicker than they can be replaced. That is one of the lessons, and it is why electronic warfare to jam, divert or take over these things plays an important part. That is why we will all be looking at our capabilities and thinking about future challenges. It is as much about how we are going to do that as about how we can help the Ukrainians. Right now, we are helping the Ukrainians, and what we have learned is coming back into our system for ourselves.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I had the great privilege of attending a delegation to the Tapa British Army base in Estonia last week. We met His Majesty’s ambassador to Estonia, who is doing a fantastic job. There is obviously huge affection between the peoples of Estonia and Ukraine, as we saw when we had the great privilege of attending the Ukrainian ballet.
I also met my constituent, Laurence, at the Tapa army base. He is in 19 Tank Transporter Squadron, and I asked him, “How can I help you? What message can I take back to the Secretary of State for Defence?” His whole thought was about the vehicles and how they are looked after, protected and maintained; it was not about himself. Will the Secretary of State join me in respecting the dedication of Laurence, everyone in 19 Tank Transporter Squadron and every one of those proud British armed services personnel working at the Tapa army base to keep us and the people of Estonia safe?
Mr Wallace
Yes. My hon. Friend was brave asking that question of a soldier—I have often had answers people did not expect. He espouses the real professionalism of our men and women. We were always taught, and I have never forgotten this, that it was, “My men, my kit, myself.” I hope Members will forgive the gender issue there. That shows the difference between us and the Russians: they do not seem to care about their men and their women, and seem to care only about themselves. That is why we see their army doing what they are doing. It is incredibly important that we have ready, capable equipment—that is the point I make to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman): it is not just about mass and it has to be about things being properly serviced and maintained. The job that my hon. Friend’s constituent was doing is one of the key things—he is an enabler. In the past, it was the enablers they hollowed out, as long as they could talk about having a “frontline regiment” or “frontline tank regiment”. However, if you do not have the transporters, there is no point in having lots of tanks, because you will not go anywhere.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is encouraging for all of us in this House to know that we have a Secretary of State who is very much committed, in every sense, to ensuring that Ukraine has everything it needs. Is there any further support that he can and will make available to ensure that the damage left by the drone attacks that were designed to disrupt power and water supplies is repaired urgently? This might not necessarily be a Ministry of Defence thing, but this is about repairing the damage and ensuring that these supplies are not attacked again. Can he make that happen with any manpower, expertise and supplies, in order to thwart Putin’s determination to leave Ukrainians in the dark and with no water?
Mr Wallace
The positive side is that the Ukrainians are incredibly skilled at being able to fix, repair and build their equipment. In many cases they have managed to turn around the shortages of electricity in a matter of days and Putin has not been successful. On wider skills, I offered at one stage to send Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, not into Ukraine but into neighbouring countries to assist with the refurbishment of tanks and such things. Those are some of the skills we can provide. In my experience, this is about “Mechanics, mechanics, mechanics”, as they will fix a Challenger tank as quickly as they will fix a T-72. They are always on offer; if the Ukrainians ask, we will be happy to help.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I agree with Members from across the Chamber in praising the right hon. Gentleman and his handling of the Ukraine-Russia situation. After the NATO Secretary-General said that NATO allies will act if Sweden or Finland comes under pressure from Russia or another adversary before they become full members of the alliance, how does the Defence Secretary predict that that might antagonise Putin and what risk does he assess there to be for the UK?
Mr Wallace
If Putin attacks Sweden and Finland, the Russians will antagonise Sweden and Finland; I do not think they will antagonise themselves. If Russia chooses to lash out at Sweden and Finland, not only would NATO meet and discuss what it can do to protect some of its closest allies, who are choosing to join, but the UK has a number of security arrangements we have made recently with both Sweden and Finland, and we would ensure, even bilaterally, that we would step up to the plate. However, what we can see is that because of Russia’s poor and failing invasion of Ukraine, the conventional military forces it would have previously had near those countries are hollowed out or have been destroyed, so Russia has much less to threaten them with. However, we are alert for things around critical national infrastructure, pipelines and electricity cables, which is why I recently deployed two ships to the area—I believe one was HMS Enterprise and the other a Type-23 frigate—to make sure we help to protect Norway’s pipelines and our infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for updating the House on events relating to the war in Ukraine.
Business of the House
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
With permission, I should like to make a statement about the forthcoming business. The business for the week commencing 24 October will include:
Monday 24 October—Consideration of out-of-turn supplementary estimates relating to His Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Bill, followed by the consideration of a resolution relating to Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction), followed by the Second Reading of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill.
Tuesday 25 October—Second reading of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
Wednesday 26 October—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 27 October—Debate on a motion on the national food strategy and food security, followed by a general debate on guaranteeing the right to maintain contact in care settings. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 28 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing on 31 October, which is scheduled to be the day of the Chancellor’s statement, includes:
Monday 31 October—Remaining stages of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, followed by the consideration of Lords amendments to the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill.
Tuesday 1 November—Remaining Stages of the Online Safety Bill.
Wednesday 2 November—Opposition day (6th allotted day). A debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National Party, with the subject to be announced.
Thursday 3 November—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 November—The House will not be sitting.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business, but, Mr Deputy Speaker, where on earth do I start? Do we even still have a Prime Minister? This is the afternoon after the morning after the night before, with the Government seemingly falling to pieces before our eyes. As some of their own Back Benchers said yesterday, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. We had a Home Secretary resigning amid discussions of national security, a Government seemingly unable even to organise against our motion to ban fracking and forced clarifications in the early hours of the morning from Downing Street. That is all in a day’s work for this absolute disgrace of a Government party, who are simply unfit to govern. They are dragging this country’s reputation through the mud and the British people will never forgive them for it. British people are looking to the Government for answers on how they are going to pay their mortgage, rent or bills, which the Government sent sky high when they crashed the economy. Instead, people are getting chaos.
Parliament ought to be a model workplace, so will the Leader of the House confirm that the reports of bad behaviour in the Lobby or outside it last night will be investigated? Will she put on record that in her view there is no place for intimidation and bullying on the parliamentary estate? On the actual votes themselves, it has come to my attention that there was a discrepancy last night between the number of votes recorded in the No Lobby which was read out in the Chamber and the number later published on the voting lists. Is the Leader of the House aware of any of her party’s Members who perhaps did not want to vote against our motion but, to avoid controversy with their Whips, marched through the Lobby but did not scan their pass and therefore avoided the publication of their names? Will she also clarify whether yesterday’s vote was a confidence vote or not? Downing Street said it was, but then a No. 10 special adviser told the Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) to say it was not, which he duly did from that Dispatch Box, causing confusion on his own side. At half past one this morning, No. 10 suggested that it in fact was and then the Transport Secretary told Kay Burley a few hours ago that it was not. We know that the Prime Minister is infamous for her U-turns, but this is beyond a joke. If it was a vote of confidence, when will the Prime Minister be removing the Whip from her rebels?
I also notice that the Government have pulled our next Opposition day. I cannot think why, after yesterday, they might do that. Are they punishing us for their chaos and incompetence last night? Is the Leader of the House aware of Standing Order No. 14, which allocates 17 days to the leader of the official Opposition party? The Government are falling behind on this, so will they be giving us an Opposition day on the week commencing 7 November?
I am glad that the Leader of the House actually has some business to announce, given the Government’s complete inability to function. As well as chaos, we have a raft of dropped legislation, broken promises and unmet manifesto commitments. She cannot blame the British people for asking, “What’s the point of this Government?” She should not just take it from me, as the former Home Secretary mentioned the very thing in her resignation letter, when she raised concerns about the Government breaking key pledges to voters and failing to honour their manifesto commitments. Someone had their Weetabix, or was it tofu, for breakfast yesterday. Perhaps the Leader of the House can provide some clarity on what further broken promises the former Home Secretary was referring to. Can I also ask that the Government send Ministers to answer urgent questions who can actually provide answers? Many important questions on national security went unanswered this morning in the urgent question relating to the sacking—sorry, resignation, was it?—of the Home Secretary.
Out of touch, out of ideas, unable to govern. They are too busy trying to get through the Tory psychodrama, which is worsening hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute—it is happening in front of my very eyes—to focus on the serious issues facing all our constituents: not just mine, but theirs too. They have crashed the economy and left working people to pick up the bill, and now they are falling apart. This is a Tory crisis made in Downing Street. They are letting everyone down. The Prime Minister has clearly lost the confidence of her party, and her party has lost the confidence of the country. It is time for a general election so that a Labour Government can deliver a fresh start for the British people.
Penny Mordaunt
May I start by thanking Mr Speaker for his statement at the start of business? I wholeheartedly endorse it.
We have ways of organising ourselves in a party system in this place, but ultimately we are all individuals making judgments about what is in the best interests of the country and our constituents. Sometimes, votes are about more than the issue that has been debated. Last night’s Labour motion was an attempt to seize control of proceedings. We all know that that was done deliberately to enable campaigns today about Members’ views on fracking and to spark the usual social media outrage; I know that Twitter has taken down some accounts today. This is standard operating procedure by Labour. Many Conservative Members have worked hard to ensure that fracking is rightly not imposed on their community, and it is by their efforts that fracking is not happening in their community. It is the Government’s policy to allow fracking where there is consent.
If we want to take the temperature down in this place, I suggest that we take the temperature down outside of this place too. I am happy to say on the record that I am against bullying both in Parliament and outside it. I hope that is the view of all Members of this House.
The country needs stability and calm. I am glad to say that that is the effect the Chancellor is having—market functioning has improved, borrowing costs have been lowered, and the pound is strengthening—but there is more to do. Despite the very volatile global economic conditions, the economy remains resilient. Unemployment is at its lowest level for nearly 50 years and the UK is forecast to have the fastest growth in the G7 this year.
Elsewhere, good work is going on in Government, in contrast to the picture painted by the shadow Leader of the House. Just this week, the Lord Chancellor opened up the legal aid system to make it easier for victims of domestic abuse to get access to free legal aid and representation; we have had huge wins in the Department for International Trade, with a £100 million trade win for the drinks industry, and huge infrastructure project wins; we have announced nearly £800 million to support research centres with breakthrough new treatments and £180 million to support children’s development in their early years, and the Department for Work and Pensions has launched a new service to help businesses support members of their workforce who have a disability or become sick. Earlier this week, we passed the Energy Prices Bill, removing the worry for households and businesses about their energy costs, and we are introducing the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill to provide protection for the travelling public who rely on rail services to get to work or go about their daily lives. I hope that the Labour party will back us and fed-up commuters, and protect those services.
Opposition Members have been running around all week saying, “In office but not in power.” I think that is probably a more accurate description of Labour’s relationship with its trade union paymasters. We are getting on with the job, and further business will be announced in the usual way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Bob Blackman, representing the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is indisposed, so he has asked me to report.
In addition to the business that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has announced, on Tuesday morning there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on baby loss and safe staffing in maternity care, and in Westminster Hall next Thursday there will be debates on Colleges Week and World Menopause Day—all subjects that I think colleagues will wish to debate. On Tuesday 1 November, provided Madam Deputy Speaker agrees, there will be a debate on the importance of religious education in modern Britain.
We have a queue of debates requiring Chamber time, so I am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing further dates for the Backbench Business Committee. We are also short of debates for Westminster Hall on Thursdays, so I encourage colleagues to apply for Westminster Hall debates.
On Monday it is Diwali, and Hindus, Sikhs and Jains will be celebrating in the time-honoured fashion. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing everyone Shubh Deepavali, and Nutan Varshabhinandan for Wednesday and the Hindu new year?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in wishing everyone happy Diwali. I thank him for his update on Backbench business and for stressing the importance of those debates. The issues that colleagues have put forward for such debates show how helpful an innovation they are, and I urge colleagues to apply for them.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I, too, wish everyone a very happy Diwali when it comes.
It is good to see the Leader of the House still in her place, but perhaps this is our last exchange. Who knows who will be asked to close their eyes, think of Britain and become the next Prime Minister? Given that the jaiket of the current incumbent is clearly on a shoogly peg, I think the Leader of the House should go for it. The 1922 Committee chair reportedly entered No. 10 just now. If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well it were done quickly.
Alternatively, it may be that, after the latest developments in the Government’s implosion, including a “resignation” from a great office of state—the former Home Secretary fulfils that dream of making the front page of the Telegraph, eh?—the Leader of the House’s party is running out of candidates for the job and she will simply assume it. That is assuming she still wants to inherit this Icarus economy so spectacularly burned and crashed by the Government, leading to International Monetary Fund and Bank of England interventions as if the UK were a rudderless economy with no one at the wheel. Come to think of it, that seems to be the course Britain is set on now, with all of us having been treated as economic laboratory mice, trapped within the deluded constructs of libertarian think-tanks. A debate on some sort of compulsory training for Ministers on the basics of economics might be helpful.
Many of us, in this place and outside it, are finding it a bit of a struggle to keep up with events, so can we have a statement, please, on exactly who the members of the Government are just now? I believe the Government are bringing in legislation today mounting further attacks on trade unions and introducing a minimum level of service guarantee for the rail network. Surely it is time we brought in a minimum level of service guarantee for Westminster Governments.
While we are at it, a debate on molestation, reflections and intimidation, as outlined in “Erskine May”, might prove useful. As I am sure the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy knows only too well, in the 18th century, insulting or menacing Members, or trying by force to influence them in their conduct in Parliament, was “roundly condemned” and considered a contempt. The time is clearly ripe for refresher courses.
The temptation is always to have a bit of fun with these weekly jousts over the political soap opera, but there is little room for amusement this week. I am all too conscious of the millions of people who are still looking to this place to provide them with some reassurance that those in charge have a clear idea of the problems they face and know what to do to sort them. All four nations are looking on aghast at the shambles this Government have created for themselves but, far more seriously, for all of our citizens. The attractions of an independent Scotland, free of this burach of a place, grow ever greater. General election—now.
Penny Mordaunt
I am actually quite cheered by what the hon. Lady said, because I had always thought the expression was, “Close your eyes and think of England”. Given that she asked us to close our eyes and think of Britain, I think I am starting to make some progress with her.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not mention any of the economic support that we have put through the House this week for the citizens in Scotland. I have to tell her that, as we prepare for a statement on 31 October, there is a policy being touted that would cost every single person in Scotland £2,184. I do not know what her views on that would be—whether she would be for or against a policy that would take £2,184 off every individual in Scotland. She looks confused. Let me help her out. She is for such a policy because that is the price of her divided policies.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
One of the finer legacies of the previous Administration and of the 2019 Conservative election manifesto was our commitment to animal welfare. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that commitment is still firmly in place, and will she therefore find time, as swiftly as possible, to bring forward the remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding us of the track record that we have in this area. As an independent nation, we are now able to go further than ever on animal welfare. We have banned the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter. We have legislated for animal sentience and we are building animal welfare into our independent trade policy. Other business will be announced in the usual way, but he has those assurances and he should be confident when he looks at our track record.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I want to ask about brain injury. Yesterday morning, I hosted a roundtable here with lots of people who have been engaged in the issue of concussion in sport. The Leader of the House may have seen recent stories about rugby players and football players who are suffering from depression, anxiety and a series of different mental health complaints—many have suicidal or dementia problems—resulting from sub-concussive events: so not even when they have been knocked out, but repeated shaking or minor blows to the head. Can we have a debate on what the Government are going to do about this? When will we have proper protocols for all sports so that we protect every single child, especially as their brain is developing?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I shall certainly raise it with both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. But he will know how to apply for a debate.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Currently, organisations such as the Government-funded Energy Saving Trust are providing excellent advice to households up and down the country on how to save energy and then save money on their bills. It is time that we provided similar advice to businesses. I am working on the matter with business leaders throughout the two cities, including Kate Nicholls of UK Hospitality and Kate Hart from Central London business improvement districts. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging businesses across the country to take steps to be more energy efficient? Does she agree that perhaps we should be looking at the energy consumption of the House of Commons, too?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question, and I shall make sure that the Secretary of State hears about it. The campaign she describes would be extremely useful to many businesses. Quite often, small differences in behaviour can lead to massive savings in energy but also business costs.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
What I witnessed yesterday in the entrance to the voting Lobby was an absolute disgrace: a clearly visibly distressed Tory MP being forced against his will and bullied—manhandled—into the voting chamber. I know that the Government are disintegrating in front of our very eyes, but that is a challenge to democracy. Will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement against this sort of bullying and support the investigation that now clearly needs to take place?
Penny Mordaunt
I refer the hon. Lady to what I said at the start of my remarks today. Mr Speaker made a statement. I completely support what he said. Of course, everyone in this Chamber would condemn bullying, both, I hope, outside and inside this Chamber. However, the situation is not helped if people do not make specific allegations. Any Member of this House who has seen bad conduct, or who has been the victim of bad conduct, must be able to come forward and report that and it must be investigated. I am not aware of any such substantiated allegations at all. I say to the hon. Lady that, if she wants to help the situation, she should think about what she could do to assist that situation, and I ask her to check that against her behaviour today.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time in this Chamber for a debate about modernisation of the Land Registry? Currently, if an identity thief steals a person’s identity and uses it to transfer the title of their house, there is a very protracted, long-winded mechanism that ends up in a tribunal, which, at the end of it, may well not see their house returned to them. That has happened to one of my constituents. He has lost a home that he spent many months investing time, cash and his own hard labour renovating only to let it to tenants who stole his identity and then used it to transfer the title. He is struggling to get that property back and it strikes me that the Land Registry procedures, where it is simply impossible to transfer a title back, are outdated and very much in need of updating.
Penny Mordaunt
I have heard about the case on which my right hon. Friend has been working on behalf of her constituent. It is appalling. To be robbed of any property is bad enough, but to rob a person of their home, which they have put their heart and soul into and in which they may have brought up a family, is incredibly distressing. I know my right hon. Friend has been doing a huge amount of work to put a rocket up the Land Registry. I want to assist her in doing that and I will write to the Secretary of State. She will also know that there are questions on Tuesday and she should raise that matter there.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I have raised concerns recently with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence about a 13-year-old girl living in my constituency and separated from her family in Afghanistan, despite assurances they were given when they assisted forces there. Will the Leader of the House advise on how I might go about raising this matter with the Minister directly and on whether we could have some time in the Chamber to debate the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and its progress?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that case. The hon. Lady will know how she can apply for a debate, and she may wish to work with other colleagues to do that. If she passes the details of that case to my office, I will write on her behalf and ask for a meeting with the Minister.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may have heard many of the tributes that were paid to the late Dame Angela Lansbury who sadly passed away last week. Most of those tributes focused on her acting and singing prowess and, of course, her legendary character, Jessica Fletcher, in “Murder She Wrote”, but is my right hon. Friend aware that Angela Lansbury was one of the first champions of the fight against AIDS? In the 1980s, when many celebrities shied away from the issue, she was in the vanguard of fundraising. She famously said that we will “never give up on the fight” until the fight is won. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that fight will not be won unless the United Kingdom and others come forward to replenish the global fund to fight AIDS, because that is the only way in which we will achieve Dame Angela’s objective?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend and join him in the tribute that he pays to the late Angela Lansbury. I did know that about her. She was a stalwart and someone who really changed views towards that particular disease. I can tell him that the Government have restated their commitment to the global fund and we will make an announcement on our pledge in the coming weeks.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem with the chaos in the Government is that it delays getting answers to real-world problems our constituents face. My constituents in the Hayes Point apartments in Sully have been struggling to get an answer on when they will get payments from the energy bills support scheme. They come under the alternative fund, which is for those who do not have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier. I have been trying to get answers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on this. Those people have not had their money as others up and down the country have. Can the Leader of the House urgently chase an answer and a statement from the Secretary of State, so that they know when they will get support with their energy bills?
Penny Mordaunt
The support is enormous and it is most welcome, but people need to know how the schemes work. I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates that they are complex. I will certainly follow that up with the Department and ensure that Members are given information that is easily understandable for their constituents.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
This weekend, Southend came together to commemorate my predecessor, Sir David Amess. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on the transformative effect of music for those with learning difficulties and disabilities? In Southend we have not only the Love2Sign choir, but the international Music Man Project, which is recording its first ever single today with the Royal Marines band. Will she and the whole House help to make it the Christmas No. 1 for all the organisation does to help those with learning difficulties to overcome barriers and challenges in their lives, to the benefit of us all?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter and paying tribute to our dearly missed late colleague, Sir David Amess. The Music Man Project is an incredible organisation. The Christmas single she mentions is available now to download and its first live performance is tonight at the Painted Hall in Greenwich, accompanied by the Royal Marines band. I was privileged to go to the first rehearsal, and it was one of the most amazing experiences I have had. I have video of the effect of those two organisations coming together; it is an amazing thing and the lasting legacy of our late colleague.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I know the Leader of the House is new to the role and that she has a great combative style, but I hope she will reflect on what she said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), because I think she was very unfair in her response. On forthcoming business, the Leader of the House knows that all Members of Parliament will be very busy, as I am in Huddersfield, working with a whole network of charities, local people and local organisations, because it will be a long, hard winter for many people who will not be able to afford to heat their house or feed their family. Support groups will have to be organised. Can she make sure that we get the right Ministers here—from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities or whichever—to talk about how the Government can help us with the resources to build those networks so that we can provide that food and those warm spaces, and so that MPs can actually roll up their sleeves and help?
Penny Mordaunt
On that latter point, I can certainly raise the matter with the key Departments involved. Much of this is about sharing good practice; there will be organisations working across several areas around the country, so picking up and sharing good practice is incredibly important.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Late-night drama, suspense, whodunnit—no, Mr Deputy Speaker, not here, but in cinemas up and down the country. They represent great entertainment, a key part of our social fabric and, for the Whips, an opportunity for people to be somewhere they can turn their phones off. Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the importance of the exclusivity window for new films in this changing entertainment landscape?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his witty question. I shall certainly raise it with the relevant Department.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that an important principle of our constitutional arrangements is that of the mandate. Given that the Government’s mandate, derived from the last general election manifesto, has now been either abandoned or exhausted, is it not time that we had a general election?
Penny Mordaunt
When it would have been in this country’s interest to have a general election, when this Parliament was in paralysis due to Brexit before the 2019 general election, the hon. Gentleman’s party blocked it. I am not going to take any lessons from him on that front. We stood on a manifesto that we are delivering, but that work is not yet done, and we will continue to deliver the manifesto that gave us this sizeable majority.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Grassroots clubs and sports are vital to communities such as mine in Hyndburn and Haslingden. I have some fantastic clubs, such as Huncoat United and Accrington Wildcats, but they need support to ensure that they have not only the vital green spaces they need to train, but the funding to exist. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate in Government time on how we can continue to support grassroots clubs and sports?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I shall certainly flag what she has said with the relevant Department. She will know how to apply for a debate, and I think it will be a well-attended one if she secures it.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Pavement parking is a massive problem in south Manchester and a difficult one to solve. We need the power that London has to introduce a default ban. Last week the Secretary of State for Transport—who, happily, has just joined the Front Bench—said it was a priority for her and she would bring forward the legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. I ask the Leader of the House to work with her colleague to make that happen. It would be a relatively simple thing to do and it would be widely welcomed.
Penny Mordaunt
To save my civil servants some work and some paper, I shall put on record in Hansard that I will ensure that the relevant Secretary of State hears what the hon. Gentleman has raised.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Nicola Sturgeon confirmed this week that she is pushing for a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The SNP’s new economic policies would cost businesses a fortune and recklessly risk people’s jobs. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on the issue so that the SNP can finally tell the people of Scotland the truth about the enormous economic damage that Nicola Sturgeon’s plan for a hard border would do to Scotland?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, I am afraid that is the latest wheeze from the SNP to risk jobs and burn taxpayers’ money. Let us not forget that this is the party that, during the pandemic, hired a testing firm at a cost of £10 million that promptly furloughed all its staff. In fairness to them, they did try to guarantee some jobs: they paid a company to the tune of £5 million per job and then failed to secure any of those jobs. Audit Scotland said of the Scottish Government that it had no framework for dealing with the private sector. Most spectacularly, the Scottish Government paid the cost of 24 ferries for just two vessels.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
MPs should be allowed to vote according to their judgment and without being harassed or bullied. Can the Leader of the House clarify what happened in the No Lobby, according to her observations? Does she agree that yesterday’s events cast a very bad light on the professionalism of our Parliament?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with the hon. Lady: as I set out in my earlier remarks, we have a way of organising ourselves in this place, but we are elected by our constituents to look after their interests and the interests of this country. I was in the Lobby last night and did not see any of what has been reported, but there are processes for reporting and for looking at such things. I am sure she will have heard Mr Speaker’s statement earlier today; I think he is right and that is the right approach.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Nitrous oxide capsules have littered North Devon beaches this summer, as more and more people use them for recreational purposes despite risks such as damage to the lungs, halting breathing and slowing the heart to dangerous levels. Manufacturers have called this week for further restrictions on their purchase. Will the Government consider that recommendation and restrict sales for recreational use?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on that important issue, which is clearly of great concern to her constituents. Given the concerns about the use of nitrous oxide, particularly by young people, the former former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), sought advice from the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. When it responds, the Government will consider its advice carefully and inform the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
There is a huge problem across my constituency of youths razzing around the streets on motorbikes—sometimes stolen—riding without helmets, pulling stunts, and putting other road users and pedestrians in danger. I was accompanied by Councillor Allison Gwynne to a meeting with Chief Superintendent Davies on Friday. The Denton South councillors Reid, Newton and Naylor had a packed public meeting on Monday about this issue, and Audenshaw councillors Smith and Martin are still picking up the consequences of a 16-year-old boy coming off his bike and, sadly, losing his life. This issue is serious, and requires a very resource-intensive programme to tackle it. Can we have a statement from the new Home Secretary that this Government take it seriously, and will give Greater Manchester Police and other police forces the tools they need to tackle this scourge on our streets?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that situation, particularly that tragic loss of life. The hon. Gentleman is right: a whole-community approach to this issue is required. I will certainly make sure that what he has said today is flagged with the Home Secretary.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement earlier this week, which set out a realistic approach to dealing with our financial challenges, but as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware, that causes concerns about funding for a whole range of schemes. My two local authorities are very concerned about their levelling-up bids. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that when the Chancellor makes his statement on 31 October, it will be accompanied by clarification regarding existing projects?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter; I am aware of the huge amount of work he has done in his constituency on the levelling-up agenda. I will certainly make sure that the Chancellor hears what he has said today, and will also make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities hears his words.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is estimated that between 2.5% and 4% of people—adults and children—have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neurodiversity matters, and the more that that is realised and understood, the more we all benefit. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the importance of fostering greater knowledge, awareness and understanding of neurodiverse conditions, and thank the groups working hard to provide support and information, especially during October, which is ADHD Awareness Month?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point, and join her in thanking the large number of organisations that work to ensure that families have the advice and support they need. I will certainly flag the issue with the number of Departments that will be looking at it; I also encourage the hon. Lady to raise it during questions.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I very much welcome the minimum service levels that are going to be outlined in upcoming legislation. Can the Leader of the House please tell me whether as part of that, she would support minimum service levels on lifeline services such as the Solent ferries, where we have both the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Unite?
Penny Mordaunt
I heard approving noises coming from my Front-Bench colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan). I also point to this Government’s record during the pandemic: we saw those services as needing support, and followed up with action. I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful suggestion, which has gone down well with my colleague.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Sunshine Pre-School, which serves families in my constituency on some of the lowest incomes, is facing closure, and several other constituents have written to me because their children have had their nursery places withdrawn due to staff shortages and funding problems. Clearly, this is a national problem. It is not, as the Government seem to think, a question of ratios of staff to children: it is about the failure of funded early learning rates to keep up with costs. Can we have a debate on the crisis in childcare, to urge Ministers to bring forward proper support for that vital social provision which is so important, not only to parents, but to supporting economic growth?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: those services are incredibly important for children’s development and to support families, but also to enable people to remain in work and progress through work. I will raise that matter, which I know is a concern across the House, with the Department for Education. Colleagues involved in the work the Government have been doing on early years, to take a more holistic approach to that whole area and make sure it is doing what parents need it to do, will also want to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in wishing all members of the Hindu community in Warrington South a very happy Diwali. I recently met with many members of that community, who expressed concerns about recent events in the midlands. Can the Leader of the House assure my constituents that the safety of all communities is a priority for this Government, and that they should enjoy the festival of light in their community?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I join in with his remarks, especially regarding all those in his constituency.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My constituents are really concerned about the cuts to their train services that have been allowed under powers that were introduced during covid. The Secretary of State for Transport has allowed Southeastern to make major alterations to its timetable using those powers, even though we are now out of covid. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State to explain why those powers have been allowed to be abused in that way, and why my constituents are losing train services?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard them, but I will formally follow up with the Department.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House—indeed, that of the whole House—to early-day motion 480, which was published this morning. [That this House congratulates the pupils and staff of Dunoon Grammar School in Argyll & Bute on winning the Community Collaboration category for the World’s Best Schools Prizes 2022; commends this absolutely remarkable achievement and recognises it as just reward for a school which has under the leadership of Head Teacher David Mitchell and his staff, become a cornerstone of the wider Cowal community; applauds the commitment Dunoon Grammar School has shown to working with and for the benefit of their local community and for striving so hard to produce active, responsible, caring and engaged young citizens; recognises this success as being an historic landmark for the pupils and staff, a tremendous boost for the entire community, a source of great pride for Argyll & Bute, and a real triumph for Scottish education; and sincerely thanks everyone involved in securing this accomplishment for the dedication they have shown in making Dunoon Grammar School an exceptional centre of learning and wishes them all the best in the future.]
That early-day motion congratulates Dunoon Grammar School, which yesterday was awarded the 2022 World’s Best School prize in the community collaboration category. I hope to arrange a visit to this Parliament from that school very soon, but before that, will the Leader join me in sending her congratulations to headteacher David Mitchell, his staff, and all the pupils on that remarkable achievement, which—as Members can imagine—is a source of huge pride for the town and for everyone in Argyll and Bute, and is a real triumph for Scottish education?
Penny Mordaunt
I am going to enter into the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s question and not comment in depth about the SNP’s track record in education. It is a wonderful achievement, and I send my congratulations to David Mitchell and all his staff and pupils. I hope they will celebrate.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Given the Prime Minister’s announcement that she intends to stand down, I wonder how wise it is to proceed with much of the business that the Leader of the House has announced for next week, not least the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. That Bill is of massive constitutional significance; it would enact a huge power grab, both from this place and the devolved Administrations.
Given that the Act that created retained EU law, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, was subject to eight days of scrutiny in a Committee of the whole House, can the Leader of the House—if she is able to make any kind of guarantee whatsoever about the future of the Government, given the complete chaos that is now engulfing the Conservative party—say whether that Bill will be subject to scrutiny by a Committee of the whole House, not just a Public Bill Committee?
Penny Mordaunt
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is an important Bill that will modernise the statute book. With regard to other matters, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am going to keep calm and carry on, and I would suggest everyone else do the same.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I take this opportunity to wish all of my constituents a very happy Diwali as they get ready to celebrate next week. The Leader of the House may or may not be aware that since 2015, there has been a steep decline in the number of UK students studying Gujarati, Urdu, and other languages prevalent across south Asia at GCSE level. Given the significance of those languages for many British children’s educational attainment and, crucially, our ability to maximise our trade and security relationships with India and other countries in south Asia, could we have a debate in Government time to explore the reasons for that decline and how we might reverse it?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I will certainly ensure that the Department for Education has heard what he said. He will know very well how to secure a debate, and I thank him for raising that.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I wish I could take the Leader of the House’s advice to keep calm and carry on, but in my role as SNP spokesperson on disabilities, I meet regularly with organisations representing disabled people. This week in Parliament, Muscular Dystrophy UK had a drop-in, to which my young parliamentary assistant went, and he came back visibly shocked at the amount of electricity that one young person needs to use to stay alive.
Given the U-turn by the Chancellor and the news we have just received that the leader of the Conservative party has stood down, will there be a statement on 31 October? I know that it is not in the gift of the Leader of the House to tell me, but if there is to be a statement by another Chancellor or the same one—I do not really care which—can we have a guarantee that there will be extra help for people like this? This is life and death for these people and for their carers.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that, because it affords me an opportunity to provide reassurance to people. This was raised last week as well, and I have already written to the Department of Health and Social Care and other Departments on the matter. We want to ensure that people are looked after, taken care of and supported throughout this winter. We are very aware of the additional costs that people with certain health conditions and disabilities face. I know that this issue is being looked at, and I assure her that I understand people want reassurance fast.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Conscious that I am in the slot of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and although I may wish to ask the Leader of the House whether she wants to make any statement of intent on her future candidacy for leader of her party, I will focus on the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) in relation to the Global Fund replenishment. It was unusual that the Government failed to announce a pledge on 21 September, and we now hear that they have plans to drop official development assistance spending even further. We are really stepping back from our global commitments. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that announcement is likely to be made? Will there be positive news for the Global Fund replenishment, and will time be made for the House to scrutinise it?
Penny Mordaunt
We did not make a detailed pledge at the pledging conference, but we did put on record our strong commitment. The issue was that a Minister was not available to go, so the pledge was not made—that was, from memory, my understanding—but it is expected shortly. I point the hon. Lady to our world-leading record at this and other replenishment conferences.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for making her statement and responding to many questions.
Points of Order
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House just called into question my behaviour when I raised the very serious allegations of bullying and manhandling that I witnessed in the voting Lobby last night. That is not appropriate. Can you assure me that there will be a proper and full investigation into this serious matter, and do you agree that that was an inappropriate response?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Speaker has already made an announcement that there is to be an investigation.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to confirm my views on this matter. We do ourselves a disservice in this place if we do not report wrongdoing and follow it up in the proper way. I did not see any, but there may well have been, and she may have seen things that I did not. In that case—
Penny Mordaunt
This is really important. In that case, we should report these issues, tell people what we have seen and support victims to come forward. We should not go on the airwaves and make unsubstantiated and, in some cases—not the hon. Lady’s—factually incorrect allegations. That does not help to raise standards in this place. Mr Speaker has got this absolutely right. I refer the hon. Lady to the statements he has made. If any member of my party has behaved in an improper way, I will condemn that as the Leader of the House, but what we need are facts, and the whole conduct of this House would be helped if people stuck to the facts.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When Members enter this privileged place, we are obliged to abide by the code of conduct that exists for all of us, which I believe to be sacrosanct. Last night, at least one photograph appeared in the national media purporting to show an alleged incident at the entrance to the No Lobby. May I seek your counsel in two areas? First, how might we collectively raise the bar of personal conduct in this place so that photographs are not taken for disingenuous purposes and for political gain? Secondly, how might we best identify those responsible, so that this poor behaviour can be brought to account?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team deprecate any taking of photographs, whether in the voting Lobby, the Chamber or certain other areas. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear, but let me emphasise it again: do not take photographs in areas where they are forbidden. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to behave better as role models to those outside looking in.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for telling me that he was going to raise this matter. I want to be absolutely clear that I took a photograph, and I did so knowing that I was breaking the rules of the House—the etiquette of the House, certainly. I did so because I believed that the example being set, when we are trying to change the culture of bullying in Parliament, was such that it was necessary to override the normal course of action. I apologise to the House for doing so. However, it is very important to understand that if 12 Members were to stand around a member of staff in that way, they would probably end up being suspended from the House for a long period for bullying. We have only just started taking bullying seriously in this Parliament.
I am not questioning what you just said, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I gently suggest that there is a good argument that one of the rules we have had for a very long time—that there is no photography and no filming in the Lobby or adjacent areas—is now out of date, and it might actually help us to stop some of the bullying—[Interruption.] I am only suggesting it gently, but it might stop some of the behaviour. Some of the behaviour changed in this House when the Chamber began to be filmed.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has made two points. One was an apology, which the House has heard. The second was about rule changes. That is not for the Chair; that is for the House, and there is a procedure to do that. The hon. Member has made his views known, and he will know how to progress that. It is then up to the House to decide whether it wishes there to be a rule change.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Irrespective of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), there were photographers outside Parliament using expensive equipment to take photos of Members of Parliament, which is a breach of the security of this Parliament. I hope that Mr Speaker and colleagues will take action to prevent that from happening in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am not aware of that, but the hon. Member has made it apparent. I will pass him the name of the person he should talk to and give his evidence to. Now let us, on this momentous day in British politics, move on—[Interruption.] Another momentous day in British politics!
Waste Crime
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, representing the Committee of Public Accounts, will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to respond to these in turn. I emphasise that questions should be directed to Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and not to the relevant Government Minister. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
While momentous events are taking place elsewhere, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the 18th report of this Session of the Public Accounts Committee on “Government actions to combat waste crime”.
The PAC is an incredibly busy Committee that holds two major sessions a week to examine the value for money of Government projects, programmes and delivery. Our inquiries come from the extremely insightful reports created by the National Audit Office. Following our PAC hearings, the Committee produces a report with recommendations to the Government who constitutionally normally have two months to respond.
This week, the PAC published its report on “Government actions to combat waste crime”, which highlights our main concern with the Government’s strategy in combating waste crime, provides recommendations, and urges the approach to be reconsidered so that waste crime is not effectively decriminalised. Despite an increase in the number of incidents of waste crime and a significant increase in the cost of dealing with it, the PAC found that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are making only “slow and piecemeal” progress in implementing the 2018 resources and waste strategy, and that DEFRA does not have an outline delivery plan for achieving its admirable policy of eliminating waste crime by 2043.
The Government’s 2018 resources and waste strategy set out the admirable goal of eliminating waste crime within 25 years and listed 14 actions to be taken, but only three have been completed: establishing the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, making changes to legislation to give the Environment Agency greater powers, and giving the Environment Agency access to police intelligence systems. DEFRA must increase the speed at which it implements this strategy, and the PAC has requested that it provides the Committee with an outline of its plan to achieve its 2043 goal by the end of this month—quite a tight timetable.
We all know that the thoughtlessness of waste crime has a hugely negative impact on people, their local area and the economy. Waste crime varies tremendously from area to area, but I am certain that all Members will have been contacted by constituents about it at some point and will have dealt with numerous cases of fly-tipping. It is an antisocial, polluting and costly crime that blights our countryside, cities and properties across England, and costs the economy more than £1 billion a year, although that figure is likely to be an underestimate.
Waste crime includes not just fly-tipping but illegal waste sites, breaches of waste permit conditions, breaches of exemptions to the requirements for waste permits and, above all, the illegal export of waste by the UK to developing countries that are ill-equipped to deal with the environmental and often infinite consequences of that waste. It is not getting the local or national attention it needs to tackle it effectively.
Waste crime is greatly under-reported: only about a quarter of incidents are reported. Government and Environment Agency statistics are not accurately capturing its true scale and impact, with local authorities not providing consistent reports on fly-tipping and relying on the public to report the crime. The PAC asks that DEFRA and the Environment Agency explore the full range of digital solutions, such as satellite and drone technology, to solve the issue of data weaknesses.
The Government’s digital waste tracking system, including new IT systems, has been described as being at the “core” of the Government’s strategy, but it is still in development after four years. DEFRA’s prototype is in the testing stages before it reaches the next stage of development, and is expected to be rolled out in 2024. That will be a big step forward in improving data and the public reporting of incidents, and hopefully in the implementation of a swift and appropriate follow-up.
The project has ambitious aims and DEFRA is confident that it can deliver, having successfully put in place an IT system when we left the EU. The PAC has investigated similar large-scale digital projects by other Government Departments before, however, and has therefore asked DEFRA to write to the Committee when the IT contract is let to confirm that that has happened and to confirm the plan for its implementation.
The landfill tax has been successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill and in encouraging recycling, which has become an increasingly normal way of waste disposal for many households in recent years. However, the PAC reports that this tax has increased the incentive to commit waste crime, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs slow to prosecute offenders. Indeed, its recent attempt to prosecute an alleged offender in Operation Nosedive cost a huge £3.5 million yet ended without going to court.
His Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC are currently reviewing the landfill tax and they need to take into account how the design of the current tax incentivises waste crime. The tax gap—the difference between the tax due and the tax collected—of the landfill tax is one of the highest of all taxes as a proportion of its size. Jim Harra, the chief executive and first permanent secretary at HMRC, assured the Committee only this morning that that is because its scope has been widened to include illegal waste sites, which are difficult to track down, but he also assured the Committee that HMRC recognised the social and environmental harm it causes.
The reality is that the current system does little to deter people from committing waste crime. Organised criminals, who are responsible for the majority of incidents, often perceive the fines as a “business expense”. Fines are not high enough to discourage the crime and, in the unlikely case that they end up in court, the penalties are not sufficient. DEFRA, the Environment Agency and HMRC need to work together more closely to develop a plan for making enforcement more effective, speeding up the process and assessing the current sentencing guidelines, which must include not only higher fines but custodial sentences for the most egregious cases.
DEFRA must work more closely with local authorities. While the Department is developing the guidance, local authorities are responsible for cleaning up the waste on the land they control and investigating suspected perpetrators. Evidence from the National Farmers Union said that better reporting and recording of waste crime on private land “is urgently needed” due to a substantial number of unrecorded incidents, with fly-tipping affecting two thirds of farmers. The national framework needs to be cleared by DEFRA so that local authorities have clear guidance on tackling fly-tipping that provides flexibility for responses but overall good practice.
As I mentioned, waste crime includes not just fly-tipping, but the terrible practice of illegally exporting waste abroad. The exact figures are unknown, but the Environmental Services Association estimates that about 400,000 tonnes of waste are exported illegally each year, which costs our economy £42 million. Waste is being exported to countries that are unable efficiently to manage the volume and toxicity of waste safely, which causes substantial and sometimes permanent social, economic and environmental harm. The Environment Agency recently secured a record £1.5 million fine in the case of a waste company that was prevented from exporting 16 25-tonne containers to India and Indonesia, but a further 26 containers had already been illegally exported.
I will go through the PAC’s recommendations. Firstly, DEFRA should increase the impetus with which the resources and waste strategy is taken forward. By the end of October 2022, it should provide the Committee with its outline plan for achieving the elimination of waste crime by 2043, and provide annual updates on progress against this plan. Secondly, DEFRA and the Environment Agency need to explore the full range of potential solutions to data weaknesses, including, for example, satellite technology, and ensure the successful delivery of existing initiatives to improve data.
Thirdly, DEFRA should work with HMT and HMRC to ensure that the current review of landfill tax takes into account the incentives that the tax as currently designed creates to commit waste crime. Fourthly, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and HMRC should work with the relevant bodies in the criminal justice system to develop a plan for making enforcement more effective across the full spectrum of waste crime.
Fifthly, DEFRA should work with local authorities to set a clear national framework for tackling fly-tipping, setting overall expectations and promoting good practice. Sixthly, the Environment Agency should write to us within six weeks setting out what actions would be required to enable it to understand the true scale of illegal waste exports and what further action it could take to prevent them. Seventhly and lastly, DEFRA should write to the Committee when the IT contract is let to confirm that it has happened and what the plan is for full implementation.
Waste crime is a large and costly problem that causes great angst both to those who are directly affected by waste ending up on their land, leaving them to clear it up, and to the public who deserve to be able to enjoy clean and healthy towns and countryside. The PAC has clearly set out its concern about how Government are combating it, and most crucial is the lack of strategy or plan for achieving their hugely ambitious target of eliminating waste crime by 2043. This could be a huge win for the Government and the people of this country, and I urge DEFRA to get on with it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and the Committee for an excellent report. I also thank the National Audit Office for its inquiry into Operation Nosedive, which was instigated by me and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). What is depressing about the report is that these are things both of us have been raising for the last 10 years, and no one has been listening.
The actions outlined are ones I support, but this is not a victimless crime. Tax has been avoided, criminals have got away with these crimes and communities have been blighted. Can I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Committee to make sure that they keep their finger on the button on this subject? I and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden have been at this for 10 years, and in our experience the evidence is there about what is going wrong, but the Government have just turned a blind eye—indeed, they have basically decriminalised waste crime. Without such pressure from his Committee, this will just carry on.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I thank the right hon. Member, who is very experienced in this field and has been campaigning on this, quite rightly, for a long time. We have made some fairly stringent recommendations in this report, with some fairly tight timetables for what the Government have to do by when. I can assure him that if we do not see satisfactory progress, we will call DEFRA back to examine why our recommendations have not been properly implemented. As he knows, it is part of the PAC system that we have the ability to call witnesses back and find out why they have not responded to our recommendations. As he also knows, as I said it at the beginning of my statement, it has 42 days in which to respond. If we do not like the responses, we can follow that up in writing or, again, call back witnesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown for presenting the Select Committee statement.
Bill Presented
Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Simon Clarke, Mr Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg and Secretary Chloe Smith, presented a Bill to make provision about minimum service levels in connection with the taking by trade unions of strike action relating to transport services.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 168) with explanatory notes (Bill 168-EN).
Backbench Business
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Dentistry
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned by the growing crisis in NHS dentistry; notes that nine out of ten dental practices in England do not accept new NHS patients; regrets the number of dentists moving away from NHS practice; welcomes the Government’s commitment to levelling up health outcomes and dental health across the country; calls on the Government to take urgent steps to improve retention of NHS dentists and dental accessibility for patients; and further calls on the Government to report to the House on its progress on the steps it has taken to address the NHS dentistry crisis in three months’ time.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for her work in helping to secure it. I also highlight e-petition 564154, signed by 11,067 people, calling for an independent review of the NHS dental contract.
Colleagues have been securing debates on the state of NHS dentistry for the past two years. This crisis has been brewing for a long time, and the situation can be likened to that of a house built on shallow and poor foundations that has come crashing down with the earthquake of covid. The King’s Fund describes NHS dentistry as being on “life support”, while the British Dental Association describes it as undergoing a “slow death”. In its monthly report for October, Healthwatch repeats that NHS dental care continues to be one of the main issues it hears about from the public, who across the country are clamouring for NHS dentistry that is both affordable and accessible.
In Suffolk, there are 70 dental practices with NHS contracts, but not one is taking on new patients. Locally, there has been some welcome support in that, in Lowestoft, a local practice was granted additional units of dental activity that allowed it to see emergency patients until the end of September, and in July the Dental Design Studio was awarded a contract to deliver NHS dentistry for up to eight years. However, very quickly both practices were fully booked up and have had to turn away patients. There is a need for root and branch reform, and I shall briefly set out the issues that need to be included in a blueprint plan for NHS dentistry.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Would he agree with me that the fundamental problem with NHS dentistry at the moment is the 2006 contract and the units of dental activity? Does he share my disappointment at the statement made in the summer about how to resolve the situation based on the consultation launched last year, and furthermore, does he hope that UDAs will be expunged from all of this so that dentists can be properly rewarded for the job they do and thus return to the NHS?
Peter Aldous
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree wholeheartedly with him on that point. I will come on to it as I set out what I believe needs to be done to improve the situation, but I think he and I are very much on the same page on that issue.
First, I will address the issue of funding. There is a need to secure a long-term funding stream. In recent years, the NHS dental budget has not kept up with inflation and population growth. Since 2008, NHS dentistry has faced cuts with no parallel elsewhere in the NHS, and the British Dental Association states that it will take £880 million per annum to restore the service to 2010 levels. I acknowledge the budgetary challenges that the Chancellor faces, but the reform process is doomed from the start without an appropriate level of investment. There is a need for a protected budget, and any funding that is clawed back must be kept in dentistry.
Secondly, a strategic approach should be adopted towards recruitment and retention, with a detailed workforce plan being put in place.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this debate. There is a crisis in south Manchester and across the country in trying to access NHS dentists. There are highly trained dentists from abroad who can help. I have some constituents who were trained at the dental faculty of the University of Hong Kong, which is among the top three faculties in the world—it has an English curriculum—but they cannot get registered or access the licence exams. I understand that the Government have said they are going to simplify the registration process. Would he join me in urging the Government to act very quickly to make that happen?
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which came at an appropriate time. Indeed, he may well have been reading my speech, because that was the next point I was coming to. In the short term, we need to be stepping up recruitment from abroad. Although the legislation tabled earlier this month to streamline the process of recognising overseas qualifications is welcome, that will not address the problem on its own, and I hope that when he responds to the debate, the Minister will address that issue. In the longer term, we must improve dentistry training ourselves and ensure that it is available throughout the country. In that regard, the proposals being worked up by the Universities of East Anglia and of Suffolk are to be welcomed.
Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, there is a need for a new NHS dental contract. It is welcome that discussions have started on revising the contract, but there is a worry that the Government are looking only at marginal changes, when ultimately a completely new contract is required. At present, the NHS contract is driving dentists away from doing NHS work. Its target-based approach is soul destroying for so many, and it needs to be replaced with an agreement that has prevention at its core.
That leads me to the fourth and penultimate component of a new system of NHS dentistry: the public promotion of the importance of good oral health, and looking after our teeth from the cradle to the grave. Denplan proposes that the Government and NHS should lead a public education campaign to emphasise the importance of oral health. There should be provision in the aforementioned new contract for dentists to go into schools, as well as into care and nursing homes. When economic conditions allow, let us be imaginative and exempt children’s toothbrushes and toothpaste from VAT. That can embed good oral healthcare at an early stage of life. It is welcome that the Health and Care Act 2022 facilitates the roll-out of water fluoridation projects, and the Government should work proactively with water companies to ensure that is universal.
Finally, there is a need for clear transparency and full local accountability for overseeing and commissioning NHS dentistry services. I acknowledge the hard work and great effort of those working at NHS England, but we need to replace a system that is inaccessible, opaque, and confusing. The Health and Care Act provides us with the means of doing that, and it is welcome that from next April, many integrated care systems will be taking on responsibility for local NHS dentistry. That is the right approach, as good oral healthcare is essential for good general health and wellbeing, and inextricably linked to primary, mental and emergency care. It is vital that those involved in dentistry are represented on integrated care boards.
Across the country there are a multitude of dental deserts. If we do nothing, if we apply the odd sticking plaster here and there, those will turn into one large Sahara. We owe it to those we represent to ensure that does not happen. That means that we need as a matter of urgency a blueprint plan for new NHS dentistry. That will not be delivered in one fell swoop, but we need clearly to lay down the route path and start taking meaningful strides down it. With that in mind, the motion calls on the Government to embark on that journey and report back on their progress in three months’ time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues will see, there is substantial interest in this debate. I do not want to put on a time limit, but I suggest that contributions are confined to about 10 minutes.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
May I, too, express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to debate this important matter today?
On 22 September, during a statement by the Health and Social Care Secretary, I raised these problems on behalf of the people of Knowsley and the Liverpool city region, and described the experiences they are having. I cited BBC research that showed that, to use the Secretary of State’s own term, Liverpool city region is a “dental desert”, with not one dental practice taking on NHS patients. In response, she said that she had
“set out in the plan today what we are seeking to do with dentists. First of all, it is the role of the local NHS—the ICB—to take responsibility for such provision, and I expect it to do so.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 839.]
Earlier this week, my office carried out a survey of dental practices in Knowsley to measure what, if any, progress had been made since that exchange. We found that, of the 13 dental practices in Knowsley, it is still the case that none—I repeat, none—is accepting new NHS adult patients, and only two are accepting children under the age of 18. I am therefore bound to conclude that no progress has been made in the ensuing weeks.
Also on 22 September, I urged the Secretary of State to take measures in the short, medium and long term to address this disgraceful situation. Since then, the British Dental Association has pointed out that
“the Government needs to show real ambition to bring NHS dentistry back from the brink.”
Although the new Administration—goodness knows there will be another new Administration shortly—has placed dentistry as a top ABCD—ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists—priority, no new proposals have been made
“to halt the exodus of dentists from the NHS”
to care for patients. Moreover, the British Dental Association points out that the key issues of contract referral, chronic underfunding and growing oral inequalities have yet to be addressed. This is not just a matter of cosmetic treatment, important though that may be in many cases. As the association pointed out, this is also about how to spot oral cancer earlier, which is one of the fastest rising types of cancer and claims more lives than car accidents. That is a particular concern for Knowsley. As the British Dental Association went on to say:
“People in the most deprived communities are significantly more likely to die from it than those in more affluent areas.”
Our dentists are in many cases the first medical professionals to detect cases. Access to NHS dental treatment can in such cases be the difference between life and death. Knowsley is one of the most deprived boroughs in the country and it is consequently in a very vulnerable position regarding the early detection of oral cancer.
The motion contains good points that I would happily endorse, but I am concerned that in terms of specific actions it calls for a progress report in three months’ time. My concern—I do not make this point to be at all mischievous—is that I do not know, and nobody in the House will be able to tell me, who is likely to be the next Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and whether they will have a different strategy on NHS dental care. So we need something to be done more speedily. The Government have to take responsibility for the current turmoil, but the fact is that there is so much uncertainty and such issues are simply not being dealt with.
The motion does not address what the Government could be doing in the short term to alleviate the problems confronting people in Knowsley and elsewhere. I have two suggestions on short-term action that could and should be taken. First, I urge the Secretary of State to introduce a procedure to enable those in need of urgent NHS dental treatment to be referred to a suitable dental practice, preferably locally. My constituency office recently dealt with the case of an 18-year-old constituent who needed urgent root canal treatment on two front teeth, which she was unable to afford. The problem was exacerbating an existing mental health problem. Since she was in constant pain and probably barely able to eat and drink, I contacted NHS North West. I am grateful that it was able to make arrangements for her to receive the treatment she needed at a local dental practice. I suggest that that approach, which I just happened to stumble across, should be added as a matter of urgency for those in need of urgent dental treatment.
Secondly, I am aware that many NHS patients have been culled by dental practices, often on the basis that they were not making use of the service on a regular enough basis. I cannot give accurate figures for Knowsley, but I suspect that thousands of people are former NHS patients. However, no appeal process is available to such patients, who have just been struck off and there is nothing that they can do about it, other than pay to be treated privately. I am aware of one case involving a Knowsley resident who, as a result of extremely debilitating, extended cancer treatment, was unable to contemplate much-needed dental treatment. When he felt strong enough to do so, however, he tried to make an appointment as an NHS patient, only to discover that he had been struck off the list.
My second short-term suggestion is therefore to urge the Secretary of State to institute an appeal process whereby such patients could apply to NHS England in order for it to prevail on the medical practice concerned to reinstate NHS patients who had good reasons for not being able to visit the dentist during lockdown, or who could not do so for medical reasons, such as those I have referred to. On the medium term and longer term, and the national problems to which I referred, I simply urge Ministers to enter into meaningful discussions with the British Dental Association to help to resolve the issues that I are so bedevilling NHS dental services nationally.
I hope that Ministers will accept that I have tried in my approach to deal with this important matter as constructively as I can. I sincerely hope that they will respond in a similar way and try to help to resolve the short-term problems that my constituents are experiencing in ways that can be easily implemented.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). This is the second time that I have heard him pronounce on NHS dentistry—I think he has done it more often than that—and he is becoming something of an expert. I wonder whether the British Dental Association might give him an honorary medal or something for that. I also have an interest—a very part-time interest—that means that I have to speak on this; otherwise, the profession would ask me what the heck I was doing. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Government Front Bench to become our voice on dentists and dentistry. It might not last as long as he anticipated a few days ago, but it is a dubious honour and one in which he will find many friends and many on the other side of the argument.
The problem we face is that there are not enough dentists. Many suggestions will come from the debate, so I will just skip through a few. The problem is not so much that there are not enough dentists—there are not enough dentists prepared to do NHS dentistry. That has been exacerbated by covid, but it is far from new. It has been a problem to a greater or lesser degree for more than five decades. I arrived in this country in 1970, produced my certificate from my university in New Zealand, got it rubber-stamped by the General Dental Council and went straight into business. I cannot see why we cannot do that now. I was one of a stream of New Zealand and Australian doctors and dentists. Once we moved into the common market, that stream was shut off.
The practice of dentistry is complex and intricate if it is done properly. A small group of members of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health recently visited King’s College dental school. I think it was enlightening for many to discover how complex and difficult dentistry is. The staff provided our members with a high-speed drill with a tungsten carbide bit and virtual molars. It is just as well that they were virtual molars—I have never seen so much tooth destruction in my life.
As I said, the problem has been exacerbated by the covid backlog, and that will be with us for some time, but we are—I hope—looking at the long term and the short term. I will touch on the short term. Some with dental interests such as the organisation My Dentist are campaigning to increase the number of NHS dentists and other groups providing facilities, surgeries and so on. But there are—I hope that the Minister is aware of this—many dental firms working hard to pull dentists out of the NHS and into the private sector.
As has been said, we must maximise the output from our dental schools. I am sure this has been done. I have heard calls for new dental schools; we have heard one today. Dental schools are enormously expensive organisations to build, stock and run. I was just in New Zealand, where there is a new school on the same site as the old one. It is fantastic, but it took years to build, stock and run it. A new school probably takes two to four years to set up and then it is four to five years before the graduates emerge. As with how a person gets their driving licence and then learns to drive, a dentist gets their certificate from the school and then starts to learn dentistry. In the short term, it would be faster and more productive if the General Dental Council were given the ability to enable overseas dentists with good English from competent overseas dental schools to enter the United Kingdom as practising dentists, without having to go through the insulting rigmarole and costs of further exams. It is an insult to most people from most of the top university dental schools to have to sit examinations here when the competence of their own schools is at least as good as those here. It would take only a small movement to enable that to happen.
A large-ish number of elderly-ish dentists who are about to retire have pulled out of dentistry because of the bureaucratic overload. Many have retired because of the strain of the job. The regulatory strictures of the Care Quality Commission in particular have added to that. Of course, that applies to small practices. The CQC is necessary. We must have it, but its extensive, detailed, time-consuming form filling has been the final straw for many dentists, especially those in small practices. Many have just retired in disgust. For my tiny part-time practice, I pay an independent company £150 a month to help me ensure all regulations are met and documented as met. It is time-consuming, expensive and unnecessary. I would therefore rather like to see an opportunity for the GDC, with outside help, to look at the bureaucratic requirement and consider whether it could ease and reduce the strain on practitioners. When it has finished with that for the dentists, it could also start looking at how hospitals and medical surgeries are treated.
Negotiations on the revision of the contract have been mentioned. It is a massive gripe among the profession in England, because of the use of the semi-mythological coinage called “units of dental activity”. They are a mythical thing. How many dentists get them to actually come together and work, and balance them so they are fair, is beyond me. Negotiations on the revision of the contract have been going on for many years. There have been many trials and heaps of tribulations. Over the past decades, dentistry has moved forward. Materials and techniques have been developed and adopted. The service available on the NHS dental menu has enlarged with that, but I question that some items on the menu are not strictly health, especially when alternatives are an option and would ease the strain on NHS dentists. If we accept that there is an NHS dental emergency, then I suggest the Government, for a short period of time, run a simple separate contract on a reduced NHS menu of strictly dental health items. A simple fee per item would remove arguments about those mythical units of dental activity. A simple contract could specifically target the NHS patients looking for a check-up and simple dental health care, particularly if it involves pain relief. At the same time, we ought to accept, because of the change in the nature of dentistry, that mixed private and NHS services are here to stay and should be encouraged, as that actually helps the NHS service.
Finally, on two really positive points, one has already been mentioned and that is teaching children, even little children, how to brush their teeth. When I first came here, I spent a lot of time in east London. When I mentioned a toothbrush, the blank stares made it quite apparent that they just did not have a toothbrush, let alone use one. The excitement, in the schools that I and other dentists have been into, of little children with toothbrushes and toothpaste is really worth watching. And the mess is phenomenal!
My final point is on fluoridation. We have now got to the stage where we can install fluoridation in our water supplies. We are an absolute disgrace in the western world. Much of the western world has 60%, 70% or 80% of their water supplies fluoridated, while we have 10%. The obstructions have been taken away and I ask the Minister to rapidly move forward with that. The payback period will be obvious after about two years and will make a tremendous difference, along with toothbrushing, as it progresses. We can be a nation with some of the best teeth in the world if we have 100% fluoride and if we teach every child, “This is a toothbrush and this is toothpaste—get on with it!”
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate and I thank my co-sponsor, or co-conspirator, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
If you might indulge me this once, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did, in preparing for this debate, look up my past remarks on this issue; a sort of compendium of forecasting doom for NHS dentistry that, as it turns out, is entirely accurate. As we have heard, Members from across the House and across the country are raising concerns on behalf of constituents who are simply unable to access an NHS dentist. The current system remains unfit for purpose. Recent BBC research found that in the south-west, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber, just 2% of dental practices were taking on NHS patients.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that not a single dental practice in either the current former Prime Minister’s constituency or the Health Secretary’s constituency is accepting new NHS patients? Should it not spur on the Government that the former Prime Minister’s constituents and the current Health Secretary’s constituents cannot get access to NHS dentistry?
Judith Cummins
I am indeed aware of that fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised it with me yesterday. Sadly, she cannot be here today to make that very point, so I thank my hon. Friend for doing so.
In Bradford, 98% of dentists are closed to NHS patients, forcing people to go either to accident and emergency or to go private, whether they can afford to or not, often taking out a payment plan because they do not have the luxury of an NHS dentist available to them. In Bradford, 16% of three-year-olds and over a third of five-year-olds are now suffering with visible signs of tooth decay. In Yorkshire and the Humber, over 2,700 children under 10 had teeth extracted in hospital between 2020 and 2021. In fact, children born in Bradford are eight times more likely to be admitted to hospital with dental decay before their sixth birthday than if they were born in the former Prime Minister’s region. The truth is that NHS dentistry in its current form is just not working anywhere for anyone.
How did we get to this position? The answer is threefold: a contract not fit for purpose, dramatic underfunding and an exodus out of the NHS workforce. During my time in this place, Minister after Minister after Minister has stood here accepting that fundamental reform of the contract is needed. And yet we are still waiting. After years of delay, the Government announced in July some small contract changes, but unfortunately those quick wins completely failed on the fundamentals. NHS dentists in my constituency tell me that the financial uplifts are minor to the point of insignificance. The Government are conducting a polish and a clean when what is needed is root canal treatment. Will the Minister tell us exactly why the Government have not delivered the long-awaited full-scale contract reforms? Is it still their intention to conduct those reforms? If so, when can we expect them? If not, why not?
It is important to put on the record that the issue here is not a shortage of dentists. The number of registered dentists is at a record high. We have the dentists, but they are working in private practice. Until the Government fix the problems with the contract, which sees highly qualified and experienced dentists squeezed out of the system, they are simply pouring water into a bucket with a giant hole at the bottom of it.
My next point is on funding cuts. We saw funding to NHS dentistry fall by around a third in real terms over the last decade and that was before the cost of living crisis. In January, the Government announced a £50 million catch-up fund for dentistry, funded from clawback, that gave practices three months to offer urgent care appointments to deal with the pandemic backlog. I warned the Government at the time that their strategy was flawed and that the funding to tackle the covid backlog would prove to be unusable and the system unworkable. ITV recently revealed that approximately £14 million of the promised £50 million was actually spent. That is just 28% of the funding allocated, which delivered only 18% of the 350,000 appointments it was meant to. In Yorkshire and the Humber, my region, only 16% of the allocated funding was actually spent. The shortfall was clawed back by the Government once again and not reinvested back into dentistry in my region. That is less than a third of the money spent, not because it is not needed, but because the Government set up a system that was unworkable.
We need targeted funding to address an acute problem in areas of high need. The successful Bradford project that I developed with former Ministers back in 2017 really worked. It was a transformative project that meant we got 4,200 extra NHS dental appointments for people who had not had a dentist appointment for over two years. In the long term, however, we need fundamental change, and a comprehensive reform of the contract to push prevention is absolutely critical to that reform. Good oral health must not be restricted by either postcode or wealth. Going to A&E cannot be an alternative to NHS dentistry.
Although I welcome the Minister to his new role and, indeed, welcome the Secretary of State’s new emphasis on dentistry in her ABCD of priorities, whoever the Secretary of State is, in whatever Government, they should learn the lessons of targeting and invest in NHS dentistry, as prevention really is better than the cure. We simply cannot go on like this. The public are fed up to the back teeth with inaction and excuses.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The dental services that my constituents use are the responsibility of the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. My comments will focus on the challenges that we face in Scotland in accessing NHS dentistry.
I begin by thanking the dentists in my constituency, who are doing the best they can and working hard to provide essential services for people across the Scottish Borders. There is no doubt, however, that dentists, dental staff and medical professionals are hamstrung in their ability to meet the needs of every constituent because of the lack of support and help they get from the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh. Although the SNP would like to pretend otherwise to deflect from their failures, Scotland’s NHS is devolved and is the sole responsibility of the SNP Government in Holyrood.
However, instead of focusing on improving waiting times in Scotland’s NHS for dentists and GPs, the SNP Government are again distracted by their endless obsession. They are again banging on about another referendum when people across the Scottish Borders and across Scotland want the focus to be on their everyday needs. Whether we are talking about nationalists or Unionists, the SNP or Scottish Conservatives, would it not be better for everybody if the Scottish Government’s No. 1 priority was to deliver better public services for the people across Scotland? We know that that will not happen with the SNP. Its first, last and only real priority is another referendum to break up the United Kingdom, as it proved again this week.
If SNP Members were here to represent the SNP, I would tell them that those who talk about division all the time are letting down my constituents. They fail my constituents across the Scottish Borders every day and every week. One constituent wrote to me recently about the lack of emergency care on weekends. While in pain and clearly in need of help, they were told to go to the shops and buy a temporary filling repair. If any Members were here to represent the SNP, I would ask them to tell me how that person is helped by another independence referendum when the SNP Government are failing to deliver for them right now.
Another patient wrote to me about the closure of dental services in Berwick-upon-Tweed just across the border. As a result of the lack of local services, she was not offered a spot for treatment nearby in the Scottish Borders. She was told that the only dentist available was miles and miles away. It was far too far away for her to travel there. That is another direct result of the SNP Government in Edinburgh not understanding the needs of local people in the Scottish Borders and rural areas across Scotland.
My constituents should be able to see a dentist in person when they need help. Local people in the Scottish Borders deserve the same access to the NHS that people in the rest of Scotland and the United Kingdom receive. Despite the best efforts of healthcare staff, that is simply not happening. Too often, the needs of people in the Scottish Borders have been overlooked by the SNP Government in Holyrood. So I would ask SNP Members, if they were here—I add again, for the Hansard record, that they are not—how the flimsy economic plan for independence revealed this week helps my constituents get access to the health services they need.
Another constituent wrote to me about her two-year-old son, who has not been able to see a dentist since he was born. The next time the SNP is making big, overblown promises about the future of Scotland, why does it not try delivering for future generations of Scottish people by doing the day job and providing the basic services that people need?
The SNP Health Secretary, Humza Yousaf, is completely failing to deliver for Scotland. Recent statistics revealed that one in four people in Scotland have tried and failed to get a dental appointment over the past year. In rural areas, the problem is even more acute. Access to the NHS is a big problem for local people in the Scottish Borders. It is time that the SNP recognised that, accepted responsibility for its failures and got a grip on the situation. To conclude, will the UK Health Minister engage with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that my constituents are given the best support possible to access the dental services they deserve?
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who tabled the motion. Many of my constituents in Blackburn are at the sharp end of this crisis, because there are currently no practices accepting new NHS patients in Blackburn or Darwen and families are facing the consequences. Children end up in hospital because they cannot get the dental treatment that they need. Between 2020 and last year, 135 children under 10 were admitted to hospital for tooth extraction. That is an appalling state of affairs. Constituents in Blackburn and many around the country are being forced into DIY dentistry.
Although we are here to discuss NHS dentistry, Members will be painfully aware that these sorts of fires are burning throughout primary care and throughout our health system. The workforce and access inequalities are driving health inequalities between the regions. The Government have let the problem get out of hand, because they cannot introduce a serious workforce plan to ensure that we have the staff we need to treat patients on time.
A recent briefing from BUPA stated:
“There is a lack of data about the dental workforce to inform a clear, centrally driven plan focused on improving recruitment and retention…the registers of the General Dental Council only list dental practitioners, but not whether they are practicing.”
It is important to have meaningful data so that we can start making the plan to deliver the dentists that this country needs.
A constituent of mine, who works for the NHS, said that she is
“expected to provide a minimum standard of care to all patients”—
and asked:
“Where is the support for dentists to provide the same?”
She asked me to ask the Minister: where is the additional support to train and retain NHS dentists, especially for areas in the north—such as Blackburn—to which it is traditionally hard to recruit?
The Minister needs to publish the Government’s health and social care workforce plan as soon as possible. It needs to account for how communities in places such as Blackburn are often under-served by the primary care system. Dentists, like GPs, often want to practise and work in more urban communities. It is important that the right incentives are delivered to get them practising and staying in the most under-served communities, like Blackburn.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This is the first debate for a long time in which I have agreed with every single word of the motion, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). Frankly, we and all our constituents are concerned about the growing crisis in NHS dentistry. We are worried that nine out of 10 practices are not accepting new NHS patients, including large numbers of children. We also regret the number of dentists who are moving away from NHS practice. Those are all issues to which all hon. Members could strongly relate, if they were here.
I have been asking myself how the problem came to be and what can be done. First, it strikes me that there is a wider issue with the delivery of public services. Governments will always be judged on the same things: whether they can achieve economic growth to provide jobs and fund public services; whether they can manage those public services competently; and whether they can do so with compassion so that our most vulnerable constituents are looked after. In the health and care sector as a whole, there is no doubt that there are significant challenges in all three aspects. Dentistry is just one aspect of the effective delivery of public services, an issue that we all recognise from emails and telephone calls with often very frustrated constituents.
However, there is a particular aspect of dentistry that is unique. With acute hospitals, mental health services, ambulance trusts and so on, MPs have some agency: we can organise regular meetings with NHS trusts, hold them to account, ask difficult questions, discuss problems and find out what they need from the Government. With dentistry we have no agency, because the local NHS organisations—they are currently known as integrated care systems, but frankly in most of our constituencies it is easier to refer to them as the local NHS—have no agency. They have no say in the contracts between NHS England and the dentists.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) helpfully pointed out, the contracts go back to 2006. Most of us have no idea what is in them. I have never seen them; I was not aware of them. No dental association, nationally or locally, has ever contacted me—or, I suspect, many of us—to say that there is a problem that needs to be resolved or to ask for help. The first we hear of it is when constituents contact us to say, “I cannot get an NHS dental appointment for myself, my children or my family.” At that stage, we go back to the local dentists and ask what the problem is.
This is what a local dentist in Gloucester has come back with:
“The majority of dentists move away from the NHS because of the continual pressures that the NHS contract places upon them in terms of requirements, payments, audits…and many other factors”.
She writes that an NHS dentist in her surgery, who has ceased to be an NHS dentist,
“was under a prototype contract that was patient-centric and when this was discontinued and changed to align with the usual NHS contract, the dentist did not feel this gave the best type of care for patients”.
She goes on to say:
“I’ve continually battled”—
she has been doing this for 25 years, by the way—
“to ensure that any patients who want NHS dental services should be able to access them, but there needs to be correct remuneration for the time and quality of services, removing a treadmill of patient care.”
That suggests that there is a problem with the contract, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly says, as well as the problem of there being no local NHS involvement.
I welcome the Minister to his role. I know that he will bring to it the same quality of analysis and compassion that he brought to his role in the Department for Work and Pensions. I hope that he will look closely at how the contracts can and should be changed—I believe that there is a window of opportunity in April—to allow all local NHS organisations to play a key role in the distribution of resources, emphasis, recruitment and so on. We will then finally have some agency, so we can do better than replying to our constituents with “I am very sorry to hear this, but there is absolutely nothing I can do,” which frankly is more or less the situation at the moment.
Several colleagues have helpfully indicated solutions beyond the contract. I agree with the point about making it far easier for dentists, whether they come from the nations of the Commonwealth, such as New Zealand and Australia—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley—or from India or Hong Kong, which is another example that was given earlier. The Government clearly have an opportunity to do something about this if they wish, not just in the short term but in the longer term, and I hope the Minister will give us some good news in that regard.
There is also the issue of skills and training. Setting up a new dental school, first, takes time; secondly, is expensive; and thirdly, will not solve short-term problems, although we do need to look at capacity for the longer term. There is a continuing problem with longer-term thinking—in the context of public services, and indeed in other contexts—to which all Governments have been susceptible for too long.
The private sector certainly has a role to play. At the risk of plugging a particular organisation, I will mention an organisation of which I think the Minister will be aware: Genix, which has a training facility in Leeds. Its founder and CEO, Mustafa Mohammed, has a strong track record of supporting the whole business of upskilling and training dentists and providing NHS dentistry services around the country. Let me reassure my constituents and others who feel that dentistry is an entirely public-sector activity by saying that just as the private sector, through GP surgeries, plays such an important part in, for example, the delivery of covid vaccinations, it can play an important part in dentistry as well.
There is, in fact, a role for a mixed economy, and, as was pointed out earlier, there is an opportunity for some short-term contracts. Perhaps the Department could step in directly, with NHS England, to provide relief for those in pain and for those with children who may never have seen a dentist in their short lives. I am sure we would all welcome that.
That leads me to the question of what some term the nanny state—the role of education and proselytising about the value, particularly for young families, of getting stuck in with toothpaste and toothbrushes, and, perhaps, the opportunity to relieve them of VAT. We know that, just as with education, if things start well there is a strong likelihood that they will continue well, whereas if they start badly and people’s teeth do not get the treatment they need at an early stage, there will be problems later. I believe that the Government have an opportunity to play a part in this, although not uniquely, for everyone can play a part; and I hope the Minister will allude to that as well when he winds up the debate.
Let me finally say that dentistry clearly needs to be represented in local NHS bodies—especially if they are actually going to play a role in it, which I very much hope they will—and that cash will be crucial. Nothing comes cheaply, but I think we can all agree that sorting out dentistry and making sure everyone has access to NHS dentists is a very precious cause, and we all hope we will find solutions fast.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have been horrified—honestly horrified—to hear reports of people pulling out their own teeth because they are unable to see a dentist. Unfortunately, that is now a reality as a result of Government underfunding of dentistry over many years. In my constituency, only three in 10 patients have seen an NHS dentist in the past two years and only six in 10 children have been able to see a dentist in the past 12 months, although the NHS continues to recommend that all under-18s see a dentist at least once a year.
The way in which the Government have let the NHS dentistry system collapse is a national scandal. Nearly a quarter of all British people have failed to secure a local NHS dentist appointment in the last year. Of those, one in five have resorted to what we now call DIY dentistry, which is terrible. Our public services are so starved of funding that people are being forced to stop trying, or to pay for private treatment. The British Dental Association says that we are facing an “existential threat”. People’s health is at risk if they do not have access to dentistry. Tooth decay is the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions among young children. Oral cancer is one of the fastest-rising types of cancer, and claims more lives than car accidents in the UK: we should remember that.
People in deprived communities are the most likely to suffer. Healthwatch research shows that those on lower incomes are worst hit by appointments shortages. The problem has been made worse by the pandemic, which increased the backlog, but the problem was there before. Limited access to such primary care means that problems cannot be caught early. People should not be facing a choice between being left in pain and paying for private care as we head into this difficult winter. We must do all we can to make sure that they can access the right services and that we address these profound health inequalities.
One of the major reasons for the backlog is staff shortages in the NHS. The number of NHS dentists is falling: one in eight is approaching retirement and 14% are close to leaving the profession. My constituents have been particularly affected: nearly 15% of dentists have been lost from Bath clinical commissioning group since 2016. At a time when demand for NHS services is increasing, we urgently need a strategy to plug these very big staffing gaps.
The Government admit that they do not know how many dental practices applied to access the extra £50 million of funding announced earlier this year. To me, that means that they are asleep at the wheel. The Government must make sure that we have enough dentists if support for the sector is to be effective. We need increased numbers of dentist training places in the UK and continued recognition of EU trained dentists’ qualifications. Dentists must be incentivised to take NHS payments and there needs to be more funding for the sector to meet patient demand. Everyone in the UK should be able to access a dental health check-up on the NHS. Proper workforce planning for health and social care must be written into law, including projections for dentists and dental staff.
The crisis facing NHS dentistry is on an unprecedented scale. Although it has been worsened by the pandemic, the emergency is not new. Most importantly—I am repeating what many have said this afternoon—the Government must reform the NHS dental contracts, which create absurd disincentives for dentists taking on new NHS patients. A review was promised earlier this year. Where is it? Oral health cannot be treated as an afterthought and my constituents cannot wait any longer.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I rise to speak on behalf of a number of dentists in my constituency. Nicola Jones, an oral surgeon at Salisbury District Hospital, contacted me to say that the lack of available NHS dentists is causing significant challenges in the constituency. I recognise that from my mailbox over recent weeks. I met Matthew Clover, a specialist orthodontic practitioner, in February. He took me through the challenges of the “units of dental activity” model: it does not discriminate properly when it comes to the classification of the different activities that he has to undertake.
The challenges derive primarily from the lockdown two years ago and the interruption to supply: 38 million appointments were lost. I welcome the Government intervention earlier this year to provide the additional £50 million and 350,000 additional dental appointments. I also welcome the Government’s statement in July, but this is an opportunity for the new Minister to challenge his officials and work with industry representatives to find a deeper and more enduring set of changes that address some of the ongoing challenges that have existed for a very long time.
I would not suggest that I have anything like the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) or, particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has a lifetime of experience at policy level and as a practitioner. But I am aware that since 1951 there has been a model of co-payments, in which dentists act as independently contracted professionals to the NHS but also typically receive an income from private practice work as well.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that, basically, private patients have been cross-financing NHS patients, but that model is no longer sustainable.
John Glen
I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that my mother is a resident of Bath and has received excellent service from her NHS dentist. Although I recognise this problem exists in different spots of intensity across the country, it needs a comprehensive solution.
The fundamental point is this: how can the model of rewarding dentists incentivise the maximum amount of engagement? All dentists start their professional life wanting to help people and wanting to do as much good as they can. I totally embrace what my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said about the need to deal with the oral health and education of young people, including how to clean their teeth at an early age. There will need to be a focus on how those practices can be embedded in a funding model that has to pay some respect to the geographic coverage of a dentist, while ensuring that each cohort of the population has access to basic dentistry.
The proposed new dental contract goes some way towards dealing with some of the challenges of the UDA model, but it probably does not go far enough. I urge the Minister to go beyond what his officials may be suggesting to him, to think radically and to take this opportunity to ask, “How can we reset after the dislocations caused by covid?” I urge him to come up with something that incentivises dentists to offer an holistic service to people of all means and to help those communities that have cold spots of dentistry supply.
I would like to make a few observations about supply and, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made some very good points about streamlining bureaucracy to ensure more people qualify as dentists in this country. Of course, it is right that we have ongoing quality assessments through the CQC, but that organisation’s focus, as across all industries, needs to be on where there are vulnerabilities and risks. When we think about NHS medical and dental services, I feel we are continually trying to be perfect and to remove all the risk, which sometimes has a cost because it involves using resources to fill in bureaucratic processes that might not necessarily, in most cases, give us much return.
My message to the new Minister is to build on the good start made by his predecessor in the summer, but to consider a more radical and fundamental review of the UDA funding model, to consider the volume of patients and to consider the real dynamics of the choices a dentist makes about how to maximise the number of patients they see who cannot afford to make a contribution.
I feel hopeful that the enthusiasm to provide the service I saw from my dentist in Salisbury means there will be a solution. I wish the Minister well, and I acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who showed a mastery of this subject.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Where are we to begin with this? We have been here before, time after time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for bringing us this debate. We have discussed this many times and we had a debate in Westminster Hall in the summer, but nothing has really moved on. Nothing at all seems to have changed.
I want to read out part of a letter I received from a constituent, and this is typical of the problem we are facing. I have received even worse horror stories, to the extent that one local dentist told me that they may close in the next few weeks. That is typical and symptomatic of this bigger problem. My constituent said:
“I wanted to take the time to get in touch with you over my experience of getting on the books for an NHS dentist. I have had no luck and have had to have private dental visits. I have luckily not had to have any treatment as I would not be able to afford it. I have reached out to a few dental practices in the area…to be told that they are only taking on children on the NHS.”
That is typical of the experience of everyone in this Chamber. I exhort Conservative Members to stop dealing with this in the abstract, as though it is only affecting individual Members of Parliament; it is a collective issue, and it needs a thorough review and a thorough push by the Government. It is not in the abstract. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred to covid. I completely accept that covid had an impact on the provision of dental services—it hothoused an already challenging situation—but dental services in all our constituencies were under huge pressure before covid. Let us not pretend that covid was the be all and end all of the dental health problem.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are systemic problems, part of which goes back to the contracts agreed with dentists donkey’s years ago, under the Labour Government—the same applies in respect of GPs. That genesis of the problem was there, but we then face the problem of training too few dentists, which I think we do, and the problems in particular parts of the country, including, Lincolnshire, which is among the worst affected. My constituents cannot get an NHS dentist and they need to have one. That particularly applies to young people and children. He is absolutely right on this.
Peter Dowd
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who reinforces the point that I am trying to make. We are being contacted by constituents, as I have just set out. We are being contacted by Bupa—I suspect that Members will have had a briefing. We have had a briefing from the British Dental Association. We have had contact directly from dentists. They are all saying exactly the same thing and the Government have to listen. Not only do they have to listen—it is dead easy to do that—but they have to act. The Government have to put their hand in their pocket. So let us stop pretending that £50 million just before the summer is going to do anything in any significant or substantive way to resolve this problem—it is not.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referred to an existential threat, and there is one—dentists are telling us that, as is the BDA. In practical terms our constituents are saying that to us, because their experience shows that there is an existential threat. The contract is a discredited one and it needs to be put right; it puts targets ahead of patient care. But this is also down to the fact that, whether we like it or not, and whether the Government like it or not, cuts in dentistry have not had any parallel to any other cuts in healthcare. We are talking about cuts of more than 25% between 2010 and 2020. That factors in and it creeps up on us year after year until we get to the situation where access to dentistry is the No. 1 issue raised with Healthwatch.
Wera Hobhouse
I was pleased to hear that the mother of the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has had excellent NHS dental care in Bath, and of course dentists are excellent practitioners and professionals. The thing is that his mother will have been a long-term NHS patient and the problem is that dentists do not take on new NHS patients, because the dental contract completely disincentivises them to do so.
Peter Dowd
That is a point well made. Another factor is that there are deep inequalities in access to dentistry. In my constituency, it is difficult to get to see an NHS dentist for love or money. I am not blaming the dentists; they are doing a fantastic job in the circumstances. They are going over and above their duty. I put on the record my thanks—as I am sure we all would—to my dentist practice, which I have been with for over 45 years. Dentists are doing a fantastic job, but they have both their hands tied behind their back at the moment. That has to change.
Some 91% of people, including 80% of children, are not able to access a dentist, and 75% of dentists are reducing their NHS engagement. The new contract announced before the summer did not really do anything and there was no new money with it. There is a significant gap—potentially as much as £750 million—in the resources that dentists need.
Another aspect is dentists’ morale, with 87% having experienced stress, burnout or depression in the last 12 months. That is a dreadful situation to put a committed profession in. We have a scenario in our country in which dentists who trained for seven or eight years—possibly more—and practised for many years are now getting to the stage where the majority are stressed, burned out or depressed. That is dreadful. According to one study, half of them are considering changing career. Some of them are seeking early retirement or going fully private. They are getting stressed out because they just cannot move the dial. They are waiting for the Government to move it, but the Government are not moving it.
Children in my constituency are three times more likely to have their teeth extracted in a hospital because they do not have access to a dentist. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) and the hon. Member for Bath referred to oral cancer. That is identified very early on—and who does the identification? Surprise: it is often the dentist. We need substantive support from the Government, not tinkering around with the contract. We need them to provide adequate funding.
Dentists must not be an afterthought. They are a vital component of the health of the nation. We must build on the historical commitment to prevention; that is key—as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. Dentists have had enough; they are under pressure. My constituents have had enough; they are under pressure. The Government have to do something about it.
In the debate before the summer, I referred, in relation to the lack of substantive action by the Government, to a rejigging of what Ian Fleming said about crisis: if once is happenstance and twice is coincidence, three times is friendly fire and four times is enemy action. We are now in a situation where the Government are perceived as the enemy because of their lack of action.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise that I was not able to be here for the whole debate; I have been in a Bill Committee. In York, people have to wait six years to see a dentist. Of course that is completely unacceptable, but my real concern is that, with the transition of dental services into integrated care systems, ICSs will not have the powers—the levers—to make the difference on training, funding and the contract and, ultimately, dentistry will be pushed into a tug of war between ICSs and the Government.
Peter Dowd
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter because it is something that I was going to raise. The health service, because of the reorganisation, is in an element of flux. It is feeling under a bit of pressure. Potentially, people are having to reapply for jobs in the broader sense in the NHS because of the reorganisation. That is a fact. I am not sure whether we should be having a reorganisation of the NHS in the post-covid environment, but that is a different argument for a different day. The broader dissonance in the system now multiplies the problems that we are having in dental practices, because they are getting pushed further away, which is why practices need representation on these boards. I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted that point.
As I said in the debate before the summer, we do not want any more excuses from the Government. We do not want any more prevarication, any more procrastination, any more pretext or any more self-exoneration. I hope the Government and the Minister, whom I welcome to his place, really get the sense of the frustration and, in certain situations, anger in the Chamber today. They really must pull their finger out—if not people’s teeth.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Like other colleagues, I have spoken out many times in this House about dentists, including in the debate earlier this year. Indeed, the very first letter that I wrote as an MP back in 2019 was about the dental contract, which was brought to my attention by one of the dental practices in Barnstaple. I cannot stress the severity of the dental desert that is now Devon, with not a single NHS practice accepting new patients. Not a week goes by without correspondence from a constituent in distress. As William Shakespeare himself said in “Much Ado About Nothing”:
“For there was never yet a philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently.”
And nor should they. It really is time that something is done. I thank the current Health and Social Care Secretary for recognising dentistry within the ABCD and that there is a problem. I thank, too, the current Minister’s predecessor for at least taking some steps towards redressing the issue of the contract, which is clearly the undermining problem. However, that is a long-term solution. The steps outlined there and the training of more dentists are not going to address the current situation.
Only last weekend, a friend, who was already registered at a dentist, told me that they had actually managed to get a dental appointment. When they got there, they were told that they needed to see the dental hygienist. They went to book an appointment and were told that there was a six-month wait to see the hygienist, who then told them that they needed to have a second appointment to do the other half of their mouth. They went to book, only to be given another six-month wait before they could see the hygienist, so it took a full year. As they said, it is a bit like cleaning the Forth bridge. This is not how our constituents’ teeth should be treated.
My concern extends to my younger constituents. The No.1 reason youngsters under 18 are admitted to hospital in my patch is linked to their teeth. At a time when our hospitals are under such duress anyway, could we not do something to help to ensure that people are able to see a dentist?
My frustration is extended by the fact that I have now managed to secure and find two separate methods for getting dentists into North Devon. Although I do not mind doing this for my constituents—indeed I welcome doing anything I can to help my constituents—I do not quite understand why it is coming down to us as individual MPs to deliver the dentistry that our constituents so desperately need.
Less than 13% of the covid catch-up funding in Devon was spent because there is no one to deliver the treatment. My NHS dentists who train up new dentists at the nearest dental schools advise that these youngsters do not wish to remain in NHS dentistry. We need to address that. Those who train to become dentists under the public purse should have to serve as NHS dentists for a certain period, but they wish to go on to do cosmetic dentistry, which pays much better. The good people of North Devon in the main are not looking for cosmetic dentistry. We are much more interested in fillings and dentures and in ensuring that our young people go on to have good-quality teeth when they get past the age of 10. I urge the Minister to push forward some of these changes, and I hope the new team remain in place long enough to do so.
We need dentists on buses or similar to get to remote rural communities and into schools, to enable every child to have the dental check-up they deserve and to provide emergency access for those people who have failed to secure a dental appointment—not because they have not tried or because of covid, but simply because there is not a dentist available to see them and many people cannot afford to pay for the treatment that they now need after waiting so long.
Sir John Hayes
My sons, who are now 21 and 18, have access to NHS dentistry, as I have, at the excellent Fen House dental practice in Spalding, but many of my constituents’ children do not, as my hon. Friend says. She talks about dental deserts in rural areas, and Lincolnshire is among the worst of those, with 38 dentists per 100,000 population. She is right both about young people and about the particular problems of rural areas. The Minister, for whom I have high regard, needs to give us very firm answers to those questions and a clear plan for what the Government intend to do about them. There is a plethora of private dentists, but too few NHS dentists.
Selaine Saxby
My right hon. Friend’s comments are wise, as always.
On international dentists, during the first lockdown, I had an Indian dentist come and meet me privately, and I forwarded that information back to the Department; apparently, there are many, many Indian dentists who would be delighted to come. We would welcome them to North Devon with open arms—indeed, we would welcome dentists from anywhere into North Devon, such is the need. I urge the Minister to look at what else can be done to speed up access for those people who are well trained internationally to come over and look at our teeth.
I will finish by reminding hon. Members how important our teeth are. I ask the Minister to do anything that can be done to help both our youngsters and those people who have struggled to see a dentist, so that we can again say that the dentist will see us now.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing what is clearly an important debate.
I take this opportunity to thank those in the dental profession in Loughborough and across Leicestershire for everything they have done over the past few years and particularly for the way they adapted to implement the huge changes needed to ensure the safety of their patients throughout the covid-19 pandemic. This year I have met with nearly all the dentists in my constituency, who have highlighted a number of issues they face and the impact they have on the profession and the patient experience more broadly.
Richard Graham
The points my hon. Friend is making are particularly important to constituencies such as hers, which have towns but are also rural.
Jane Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a true hero in every way.
One concern is about the UDA system, with the recurring message being that the system in its current form is not fit for purpose. I welcome the package of initial reforms to the NHS dental contract announced in July, in particular the introduction of enhanced UDAs to support higher-needs patients.
However, the reforms do not address my local dentists’ concerns that the current system is based on rewarding reactive treatment, rather than preventive, meaning that dentists are driven to do the minimum necessary to meet the terms of the target. That is a source of frustration for some, who have expressed their preference for being remunerated for using their initiative and working in the best interests of their patients.
Furthermore, while it is welcome that a minimum indicative UDA value of £23 has been introduced, UDA payments are not rising in line with increasing overhead costs, which is devaluing contracts and, in some cases, leaving dentists out of pocket. That was highlighted recently during a conversation I had with Bupa in Loughborough. Bupa expressed that that is compounded by the fact that UDA payments vary geographically, so that a UDA is worth £36 in its Sheffield practices but only £24 in its Loughborough one. Finally, the reforms do not address the issue of dentists not being given leeway under their contracts for last-minute cancellations and no-shows, even though they can lead to missed targets. I ask that this be urgently reviewed, so that we do not punish dentists for trying their hardest to continue to provide the care needed.
It is clear that there is still a way to go to make NHS dental contracts more attractive, both in terms of the nature of the dentistry performed and the level of financial reimbursement received for services performed. I fear that if the Government do not continue to work at speed, we will lose even more NHS dentists through early retirement, a reduction in time spent completing NHS work, or a full move into private practice. That would be detrimental to patient care and the availability of NHS appointments. I know that the former Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), was working hard to review UDA contracts, and I would welcome confirmation from her successor that they will continue that hard work.
As well as difficulties retaining dentists, I have been informed that locally, we are having difficulties recruiting them. One reason for that is that there is no dentistry school in the east midlands, our nearest being in Sheffield and Birmingham, and students are choosing to enter into the workplace close to where they study. That is causing supply issues in the NHS service, and has created a gap in the market that is being filled by private dentists with a focus on cosmetics. We therefore need to ensure we are training up enough dentists and providing them with incentives to move away from where they are studying to areas with greater demand. Bupa has also advocated for putting dental practitioners on the shortage occupation list in order to increase overseas recruitment and fill shortages, then upskilling those practitioners via short courses to meet UK standards. Could the Minister please comment on the actions being taken to increase the number of dentists from overseas?
I am very concerned that NHS England has proposed closing the intermediate minor oral surgery service in Loughborough, meaning that local residents will have to go as far as Leicester for treatment. That city is some considerable way away, and there has been a recent cut in bus services, the No. 2 bus service in particular. Loughborough is effectively Leicestershire’s county town, so there is more than enough demand there for that service. Closing the centre will only increase pressures on the Leicester centre, extending waiting times and further impacting on patient care. That centralisation of services does not meet the needs of the patient, and I ask that the Minister look with some urgency at local services’ availability throughout the country, especially throughout Leicestershire.
Having listened to the whole of today’s debate, it has been very interesting: there are a small number of points that need to be addressed, which have been made by Members from all across the Chamber and all over the country. I do not think this is an insurmountable problem to solve, and I feel sure that the Minister will be able to address it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on having secured it. We support the motion in the form in which it has been moved; there is nothing in it that we disagree with. If some of the political arguments are removed from the debate, I think there is consensus across the House as to what the problems are and what needs to be done.
Sir George Howarth
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so soon. I agree with him about the motion, but I did make the point that there were some short-term measures that could, and should, be taken within the three-month period that the motion envisages before the Government report back on progress.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the Government cannot expedite action on the issues he mentioned in his contribution and get those improvements in place.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd), as well as the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Salisbury (John Glen), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for their contributions.
I welcome the Minister to his place. I am not sure how long he is likely to be at the Department of Health and Social Care, but I hope he is there long enough to implement some of the changes. I am all for a bit of stability in the Department. He is a good person and a good friend, and I wish him well. However, when he comes to the Dispatch Box, he will no doubt seek to deflect from the situation that has been described my Members across the Chamber by saying that we are here today because of the pandemic.
The backlog has not helped—we all acknowledge that; it goes without saying—but the Government’s spend on general dental practices in England has been cut by more than a third over the past decade, with the number of NHS dental practices in England falling by more than 1,200 in the five years prior to the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) raised that, and it cannot be ignored. It creates the regional imbalances and dental deserts we have heard about. This is not a rural-urban thing; it is a rural and urban thing, sadly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) spoke about those dental deserts, which are very real.
The Minister’s next line of defence, if I were to guess what the officials have put in his red folder, will be, “It’s all because of the dental contract.” There is some truth in that. It is 16 years since that dental contract was introduced, and it was introduced for a perfectly good reason. There was no golden age of NHS dentistry before it. There is a reason why people of my age have a mouth full of fillings and my children do not. It is not because I did not brush my teeth as much as my children do, and it is not because I ate more sweets than my children do. It is because the emphasis for paying dentists prior to the introduction of the changes was on early treatment that was perhaps not necessary—“drill and fill” is what they called it. We recognised in 2010 that the contract had not worked in the way we hoped it would, and we proposed changes. Of course, we lost that election, but after 12 years of this Government, I am afraid the line will not wash that it is solely the contract, because they have had plenty of time to make changes to that contract and have not.
We hear about the ABCD plan, and I certainly welcome the “D” in it; at least there is a recognition of dentistry. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, I worry that this kind of “Sesame Street” strategy does not come close to tackling the scale of the emergency that is gripping dental care. All we have heard from the Secretary of State is sticking-plaster solutions that tiptoe around the edges while failing to address the root cause. That is apparent in the Government’s “hit and hope” approach to dentistry. The £50 million of emergency funding announced earlier this year is a prime example. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, it is a time-limited, inaccessible pot of money that has done precious little to improve access. In fact, figures obtained by the British Dental Association showed that just 17.9% of that funding was drawn down. This is indicative of a sector that has completely lost faith in the Government’s ability to act, and to be frank, I do not blame them, because when we do see action, it does not meet the scale of the crisis, and in some cases it makes things worse.
As we have heard, the geographic, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities affecting access to NHS dentistry are becoming starker by the day. What does the new Health and Social Care Secretary do in response to that problem? She scraps the health disparities White Paper. It is beyond bizarre that in the face of such overwhelming evidence, the Government will not even consider possible solutions—let alone implement them.
I fully support what the hon. Member for Waveney and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about education. Dentistry in schools, a prevention strategy and an emphasis on good oral health is absolutely crucial. We would support the Government in implementing that—hopefully sooner rather than later. The consensus and mood is there to get that done, so I hope the Minister will take that up and get going on that opportunity.
As for many issues facing our NHS, much of the problem with NHS dentistry can be traced back to one thing: workforce. Several hon. Members raised that point. Any hope of an NHS recovery must be underpinned by a comprehensive workforce strategy. Where is that strategy? Was it accidentally shredded with the mini-Budget? I am sure the Minister will hail the fact that NHS stats show an increase of 539 dentists practising in 2021-22, compared with the year before. When we drill down beneath the surface, however, there is not much to be positive about.
Those stats are rendered worthless by the fact that a dentist performing a single check-up on the NHS in a 12-month period is weighted the same as one with a full cohort of NHS patients. BDA survey data shows that for every dentist leaving the NHS altogether, a further 10 are significantly reducing their NHS commitment. No matter how much Ministers might try to fudge the numbers, they simply do not add up. We cannot afford more bluff and bluster. We need action, which the Opposition will support.
The outgoing Prime Minister said that dentistry was in her top three priorities for her first 90 days. That now seems rather optimistic given that she is Liz of 44 days, but we really want the Government to act on that commitment. Can we have an update on how things are going?
The Labour party will fund one of the biggest NHS workforce extensions in NHS history. We will double the number of district nurses qualifying every year, train more than 5,000 new health visitors and create an additional 10,000 nursing placements every year. We will fund this transformative expansion by abolishing non-dom tax status. We will give dentistry the staff, equipment and modern technology it needs to get patients seen on time. Labour has a plan. Where on earth is the Government’s?
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
I thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for his kind words. He will be pleased to know that, despite what he said, I scribbled my own speech today and I can confirm that it will be a fudge-free zone. In fact, I have not had any fudge for about three years and I do not intend to start now—not least because it would not be great for my teeth.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing time for this hugely important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time and all right hon. and hon. Members who have made constructive contributions to the debate. It would be remiss of me not to thank all those who work in NHS dentistry, not just for their work throughout the pandemic, but for the work that they continue to do serving people up and down the country.
In the relatively short time that I have available—I am conscious that there is another important debate to follow—I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points, themes and questions raised as possible. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members know me well enough already, however, to know that my door is always open. I have never turned down a meeting with a parliamentary colleague and I do not intend to start now. This is an important issue and I hope that we can continue to talk about it at length, even if not in this Chamber.
As the new Minister—or new new Minister—for primary care and therefore dentistry, I have spent the first few weeks in post learning more about NHS dentistry, including by meeting dentists; meeting people at the coalface and the grassroots is really important. Of course, I have my constituency experience too. Despite the events of today, I very much hope to be here for some time to come.
Let me say at the outset, in response to I think nearly all of the contributions made today, that I get it—I really do get it. I know that in many parts of our country access to NHS dentistry is difficult or far more difficult than it should be, and I want to make it clear that dentistry is an incredibly important part of the NHS. The Government and I are committed to addressing the challenges that NHS dentistry continues to face across the whole country, and as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish rightly pointed out, it is in our ABCD strategy.
I turn to some of the themes raised. The first is access, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Salisbury (John Glen), the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). Access to NHS dentistry varies across the country—we know that—and it was an issue, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish rightly pointed out, even before the pandemic, but the pandemic has exacerbated it and added further pressure to the system.
The Government are taking a number of important steps that will improve dental access for patients and make NHS dentistry a more attractive place for dentists and their teams to work in. I will outline just some of those. These changes include improvements to the current NHS dental contracts—I will come on to that in a moment—and of course to the recruitment and retention of dental professionals. I say dental professionals specifically because this is of course about far more than just dentists, as important as they are. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish pointed out, rightly, we have seen an additional 539 more dentists returning to NHS dentistry last year, which of course means they are able to treat more patients, but I recognise the point he rightly made, and we do need to go further and faster.
On the steps taken, notwithstanding the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford South, we made £50 million of extra funding available for NHS dental services at the end of 2021-22, which provided more appointments and increased capacity in NHS dental teams. I noted her points, and we have learned from that. Given that experience, I would certainly want to do things a little differently if we considered such a proposal again. We announced a package of improvements to the NHS dental system on 19 July, as a number of Members have pointed out, which was set out in our plan for patients. These are an important first step to system reform and are designed to improve access to dental care for patients, particularly patients with the most complex treatment needs.
A number of hon. Members raised the much criticised—and that is as far as I will go, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will be pleased to know—2006 contract. We are making improvements to ensure that dentists are more fairly remunerated, especially for more complex oral health needs. The one example we hear very often is of dentists getting paid the same for doing one filling as for six fillings. As numerous hon. Members have pointed out, we have also set a £23 minimum UDA value, notwithstanding the points made about the variation around the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester raised accountability locally, including to Members of Parliament. In part the answer to that is their coming within the remit and purview of integrated care systems. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is well aware of the chief executive of his integrated care system, and will know how to contact and meet them on a regular basis.
Richard Graham
The Minister is absolutely right: not only do we know the chief executive, but all Gloucestershire MPs have had regular meetings with them, including one specifically on this issue. That is why I raised the importance of their being given the opportunity to take responsibility, which I hope my hon. Friend will welcome.
Will Quince
I certainly do welcome that, because this is not just about commissioning, but about accountability and oversight.
Our changes will allow NHS commissioners to have more flexibility in commissioning, and I think that is really important, because if they have that flexibility in commissioning additional dental services, they are the ones who know the local need within their area. I want to see far more responsive management of contracts, so if they have underperforming practices and practices that can do more, we should enable such practices to do that. For example, a high-performing practice should be able to deliver beyond its existing contract to make up for the fact that a neighbouring practice is not doing so. That addresses some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney about the clawback of UDA funding at the end of the year, and then its not necessarily being spent on dentistry. As part of that, I also want and expect more transparency. We will make it a requirement for NHS dentists to update the information on their NHS website, so people can see which dentists are accepting new NHS patients for treatment.
On that point, I want to bust the myth about being registered with a dentist. There is no such thing as being registered with a dentist or a dental list. People approach an NHS dentist for specific treatment. They go on their list, register and have the treatment. They can have an ongoing relationship with a dentist, but anyone can book an appointment with any dentist with an NHS contract, regardless of where they live in the country. It is important to get that message out, because when our constituents say to us, “I can’t get a dentist locally”—I want to address that point—I want to ensure that they know that they could travel to a neighbouring town or city. They could travel half way across the country if they wanted to, for example if they had relatives there, if there was a NHS dentist who had capacity to see them.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister recognise that because of the abnormalities of the dental contract, and dentists not knowing which patients they are getting, NHS dentists would rather take a patient whom they already know, and whose history of dental problems or otherwise they know, rather than taking somebody they have never seen? There is a disincentive to take on new patients, but there is a continuity for those who are already with an NHS dentist.
Will Quince
Of course I take that point—it is a fair one—and when those who seek NHS treatment have an ongoing relationship with a dentist, they are more likely to get seen. When considering reforms to the system we will certainly take that point on board.
Sir George Howarth
The description that the Minister gave of the existence, or otherwise, of lists is accurate, but when anyone seeking to get NHS treatment in a dental practice rings up, they are most likely to be told by the receptionist that the practice is not taking NHS patients. The difference between the two situations, while technically correct, is not there in practice. Before he concludes his remarks, will he address the issue I raised about the short-term measures that can be, and I believe should be, taken to improve the situation?
Will Quince
I am conscious of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am certainly willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman to consider what short-term measures we can take.
There is so much I want to say about the contract and my ambitions for the future, but politics is the art of the possible and deliverable, and I will be honest and frank with the House, and with stakeholders across the sector, about what we can deliver. We will then work towards what is within the art of the possible. International dentists are a vital part of the UK’s dentistry workforce, and I am happy to meet hon. Members to set out exactly what we are doing. I hope to bring forward legislative changes later this year. On dental training, I would love to talk more about the Advancing Dental Care review and the centre for dental development, but that may have to wait for another day—you have advised me about the time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Prevention and oral health has been raised by many Members and is an important part of our strategy. I am looking closely at what more we can do with other Departments, especially around supervised toothbrushing, but also fluoridation, which was raised by numerous Members. Access to urgent care is important, and if people struggle to get an appointment they should call 111. This is the beginning of our work to improve NHS dentistry, not the limit of my ambition. This is just the start, and we are committed to long-term improvements, including changes to improve access to urgent care, and further work on workforce and payment reform. In the meantime there is lots we can do to improve access to urgent care, provide better access for new patients, and make important changes to workforce and payment reform. With that short response I hope I have assured hon. Friends and Members that action is being taken now to address the challenges of access to dental care, especially around recruitment and retention. I also want to reassure Members of my personal ambition and passion for bringing about the medium to long-term positive change that we want for NHS dentistry.
Peter Aldous
We have had a full and productive debate. I will quickly run through a few points—I apologise if I miss any hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) rightly highlighted the importance of addressing oral cancer quickly. I take on board his proposal for the short-term fast-tracking of emergency support. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) suggested a short-term simple contract to get on top of the backlog. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) highlighted how £50 million was made available but that the system is so broke we spent hardly any of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted that the problem is not just in England but in Scotland. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) mentioned the importance of workforce planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned the importance of the local NHS being involved. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) highlighted the alarming rise of DIY dentistry.
It was good to have my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in his place for the debate. He emphasised the importance of the short-term UDA model. We have been going back to 1951 as a basis, and we need to bring that right up to date. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is right that we have been here before. There is now a need for action. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned dentists getting on the buses—an interesting way to improve accessibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) again highlighted the short-term arrangements.
Finally, the Minister said that his door is always open. I welcome that. I hope that he will be in his place for some time, because the last thing we need is more change. If the motion is agreed to, when we come back in three months it must be a question not just of what we will do but of what we have done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is concerned by the growing crisis in NHS dentistry; notes that nine out of ten dental practices in England do not accept new NHS patients; regrets the number of dentists moving away from NHS practice; welcomes the Government’s commitment to levelling up health outcomes and dental health across the country; calls on the Government to take urgent steps to improve retention of NHS dentists and dental accessibility for patients; and further calls on the Government to report to the House on its progress on the steps it has taken to address the NHS dentistry crisis in three months’ time.
Motor Neurone Disease
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of investing in the future of Motor Neurone Disease.
After much delay due to circumstances out of our hands, I am grateful that we have the opportunity to debate this vital issue. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its efforts in finding us time to speak about it today and the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for her support. Time is of the essence for those affected by motor neurone disease, but a time of calm seems not to be fated for the debate, having endured rail strikes at the first attempt and our national loss of Her Majesty at the second attempt. I had intended to comment that at least today was a day of calm, but that does not appear to apply.
I do not usually speak in the Chamber as filler material for procedural purposes. I speak only when I think that I have something to contribute, and that is very much the case today. Back in 2017 when I was selected to stand in my constituency of Northampton South after my time as an MEP, my first meeting was during a visit to the Motor Neurone Disease Association headquarters, which is in my constituency. I had heard of motor neurone disease, of course, but I had no idea that it would become so central to my time in this place and an issue that I would hold so close to my heart. As soon as I joined Parliament, I became a member of the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease. I became a vice chair, and then chair, following Madeline Moon, a former colleague and a formidable campaigner on this topic.
I am sure that hon. Members know what comes with a diagnosis of motor neurone disease. It is a fast-acting and rapidly progressing neurological disease affecting nerves that control muscles. It leads to a rapid deterioration of the body, leaving many sufferers unable to speak. Ultimately, it results in death. Sadly, at present there is no cure. About a third of MND sufferers pass away within a year of diagnosis, and more than half within two years. It affects up to 5,000 people at any one time in the UK. However, I stress that that number would be much greater were it not for the fast-acting nature of the disease. It is therefore in a critical sense not a rare disease.
The debate is about not just stands and numbers but people, many of whom I have worked with and been inspired by. All hon. Members in the Chamber as well as those watching in the Gallery and at home will know about the campaigning of rugby league legend Rob Burrow and his family, as well as his teammate Kevin Sinfield, who have not only brought the Government’s attention to MND but raised its profile. Colleagues will know about the powerful BBC documentary that Rob produced.
Alongside Rob, Doddie Weir and Stephen Darby have shown the same tenacity and dedication to raising the profile of MND, as well as Lee Millard, David Setters and Chris Johnson, who have worked closely with the all-party parliamentary group. They have attended several of my meetings in Parliament and met Ministers as well. From my own constituency, Emma Moss, a mother and former deputy headteacher diagnosed with MND, has just received a Points of Light award for her campaigning. I am in no doubt that her family, especially her daughter, are immensely proud of all she has achieved in the face of adversity. I would like to also mention Ganesh and Rachel Thayanithy, whom I spoke with recently following from Rachel’s diagnosis. They have also shown that inspirational quality.
There are a lot of people I could mention who have done so much to highlight MND and support those with it, but I want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) whose help was crucial as Secretary of State for Health, one of the busiest roles in Government. When I arranged for a group of MND sufferers and carers to come—this remains one of my most treasured memories—and proceed through the streets to No. 10 to demand action, my right hon. Friend came to see us. He did not just come and say hello; he stayed and spoke to virtually everyone. He had a lengthy discussion with the MND teams and with Professor Al-Chalabi in particular. Outside the bubble, and indeed even inside it, it is not always possible to know who really treats people well and with respect and gives them a fair hearing. I have certainly had some experiences of that myself here, but none of that applies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, so let the record show that he really is one of the good guys.
In recent years, there has been ever-growing interest from the research community and the pharmaceutical industry in MND. A real surge in studies and trials have offered sufferers and their families some renewed hope for treatment and a cure. Some of those have included the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy, an inherited degenerative condition that targets motor neurones that predominantly occurs in infants and children. The ATLAS trial is actively recruiting SOD1 gene carriers and aims to establish a blood test which can give an early warning that physical disease will manifest within the coming six to 12 months. Participants can then take part in trials of the Tofersen treatment, which initial evidence suggests can substantially slow progression of severe disease, thereby boosting respiratory function, muscle strength and quality of life.
Essential to enabling that research is, of course, funding. After long dedicated campaigning, the United to End MND coalition achieved a huge victory in November 2021 with a commitment from the Government to invest £50 million over the next five years into targeted MND research, involving the creation of an MND research institute to accelerate the quest for treatments. What a rollercoaster that was from there not being any announcement in the Budget—down—to a special announcement a week later—up—that £50 million was forthcoming, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. The Government further confirmed in September 2022 that the funding would be ringfenced, which provided confidence, and further victories have followed. A group of charities and Government research organisations have awarded £4.25 million to MND experts at six UK universities to kick-start collaborative moves to find solutions to problems hindering MND research, such as better testing, data collection, wider trial participation and wider access to the only current life-extending treatment for MND, with the aim of making real progress and making it fully treatable within 10 years.
There is, however, so much more to do. The initial ambition of the bid was that the virtual research institute would free up researchers from having to engage with multiple application systems and assessment exercises marked in Whitehall. That detracts from the time researchers can spend on pure research and progressing treatments. I therefore suggest to Ministers that this would be a perfect opportunity to put into practice the new, new Government’s emphasis on cutting red tape. Researchers, desperate to get on, are presenting a way to make better use of public money for the benefit of the cause. Please be more imaginative about tackling process. Please do not let officials say that we have always done it that way. I am very pleased to go and see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) to make progress on this issue. I believe that if anyone can cut through this, given his skills and experience, it is him.
Another key area on which progress is needed is access to genetic testing. That is particularly critical in the case of the Tofersen treatment, because it is a gene-based therapy targeting an inherited form of MND caused by mutations in the SOD1 gene. Currently, genetic testing for MND is typically restricted to patients with family members also affected by the disease and patients who do not have a family history but have symptoms starting early in life. According to the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London, that state of affairs potentially overlooks hundreds of people, including many over-40s, who have a genetic form of the disease and for whom those new treatments, which are gene-based, could make a real difference. However, there are broader benefits in widening access to genetic testing, too, because it enables people to have an understanding and therefore earlier access to key advice and counselling, regardless of their age.
The confirmation of an MND diagnosis is devastating for anyone to hear. A survey by the Neurological Alliance of 8,500 people living with such conditions found that 40% of those surveyed did not feel that they had adequate access to mental health services. That needs to change. Many said that they had waited a year from their first symptoms after seeing their GP to see a neurological specialist. That also needs to change— notwithstanding the backlogs from the pandemic, and so on—and not only for MND, but for the majority of neurological conditions. In the light of that, I hope that the Government will listen to growing calls from the MND community for the Government to invest in and establish a neuro taskforce to drive forward improvements in neurology services and ensure that the impacts of the pandemic are both understood and addressed for people seeking help for living with MND.
Many sufferers require around-the-clock care, which often falls to family members and loved ones. Although many will give the care that their loved one deserves, that is a difficult and demanding experience. The MNDA carried out a survey and found that 33% of those surveyed spent more than 100 hours caring for their loved one and 45% of those received no benefits at all. That heartbreaking situation should not happen, with even those who receive the carer’s allowance struggling to support somebody, having had to give up a full-time job to care for an MND sufferer—not to mention the problems with disabled adaptations. The MNDA is therefore calling on the Government to publish a recovery and respite plan for unpaid carers, which would focus on packages for carers, including mental health, financial and other measures.
As we move into the winter and spring, there are justified concerns from the MND community about the non-inclusion of MND carers in the winter and spring covid booster vaccination programme. I would be grateful if the Minister considered expanding access to MND carers.
MND is a disease that affects people from all communities. The nature of the disease requires specifically trained carers, as that not only ameliorates the condition but helps to prolong sufferers’ independence and autonomy, maintaining their wellbeing and dignity as the disease progresses. Given those specific needs, it is conspicuous that only 26% of people with MND received that sort of care.
Social care has been a matter of much discussion over the past few years and is one that I have spoken about many times in the House. As a former county council leader and a member of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, I can say that the situation for sufferers of MND is a reflection of wider social care failings. The complexity of taking care of MND sufferers should not limit their access to services because agencies are reluctant or unable to commit time or money to that service. There is a need for specific support, particularly for respiration, but people with MND try to live their lives as richly as possible and the failings of social care must not hinder that.
Limited specialised care will otherwise continue to contribute to unnecessary danger. Inadequate understanding on how to use equipment, for instance, has left patients leaving hospital with incorrectly attached tracheostomy tubes, resulting in individuals having entirely preventable critical emergency readmissions. In the best-case scenario, the lack of access to skilled social care puts the burden on friends and families; otherwise, it leaves people going prematurely to hospital or to a hospice. The Department of Health and Social Care, which provides 20% of the £50 million that I referred to, clearly needs to recognise the relevance of social care to the conversation. We ask the Government to invest wisely to improve the quality of and access to social care. Those who live with MND need skilled and trained staff.
We are talking about significant sums being invested, but it imperative that the closer-to-home costs of MND are also addressed. Given how aware of finances we are in the current cost of living crisis, it does not take a very significant stretch of the imagination to understand that those with MND are all the more vulnerable to rising energy costs. Indeed, the household costs are double for people with MND, piling on top of already rising costs. The bills that MND sufferers face make very sombre viewing.
It is no surprise that four out of five people with MND consider the impact of the disease to be very negative. Their costs only increase over time as the disease progresses and they rely further on energy-consuming equipment. Inevitably, they spend more time at home fatigued by the disease, which has an energy impact. For those with MND, who have more to deal with than most of us can imagine, that financial uncertainty should be one less thing to have to think about.
I therefore hope that the Government will try to ensure that disability benefits are uprated in line with inflation and that those who live with MND and other disabling conditions receive continuing support with energy costs after the proposed end to the cap scheme in April. I also hope that the Government will increase the emergency support package that they announced in May to ensure that the most vulnerable are supported through the coming winter.
There are a huge array of issues to tackle with MND, simply because of the severity of the disease, but I hope that I have provided a run-through of the issues that need to be considered, especially by the Government. I look forward to colleagues’ speeches.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious that we have well under an hour left for this debate. If every Back Bencher takes about six or seven minutes, everyone will have an equal chance to contribute. I hope we can manage without a time limit.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer).
Motor neurone disease is a rapidly progressing neurological illness. About 400 people in Scotland and 5,000 people in the UK are living with this terminal condition. In a healthy person, the motor neurones carry signals from the brain directly to the muscles, but motor neurone disease stops signals from the brain reaching the muscles. Over time, muscles weaken, deteriorate and eventually stop working. At present, there is no cure for motor neurone disease, although there are treatments that aim to manage symptoms and improve quality of life.
My first encounter with the disease was when one of my sporting heroes announced that they had received a diagnosis. A landmark study by the University of Glasgow found that the risk of MND among Scottish sports players was 15 times higher than in the general population. The research, which compared 412 former Scotland internationals born between 1900 and 1990 with more than 1,200 non-players of the same age, area and socio- economic status, also found that rugby players—all male —were twice as likely to develop dementia and more than three times as likely to receive a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. A 2017 study at the University of Stirling by the same researchers showed direct evidence for short-term sub-concussive changes in the brain following any sport-related impact to the head. The research found that former professional footballers were three and a half times more likely to die from illnesses such as motor neurone disease and dementia than the general population.
Ultimately, MND claimed the life of my sporting hero, the great Jimmy Johnstone, but not before he put up a heroic fight against the illness, helping to educate people on the disease. Knowing that any cure would come too late for him, he campaigned valiantly for stem cell research so that others could get some relief.
These important studies have added to the growing evidence that repetitive head impacts in the sporting arena may lead to an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease, and that it will be even worse in 20 years’ time.
It would be remiss of me not to mention someone who has been a tireless MND campaigner in recent years, the former Scottish rugby player and icon Doddie Weir. Doddie was diagnosed with MND in 2017, and has since set up the foundation My Name’5 Doddie in order to raise funds for research into cures for the disease and to provide grants for people living with the condition. So far he has raised more than £1 million. I am sure all Members on both sides of the House welcome that, and will join me in commending him for it.
I am also sure you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is only fitting for the UK Government to do Doddie’s legacy justice and reconsider their approach to MND funding. They are currently spending £50 million on MND research, and we in the Scottish National party welcomed the announcement of that in November last year. However, given the increasing impact and prevalence of this disease in our communities, it is surely only right and proper for the Government to outline the progress they have made in allocating the funds. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that regard.
This becomes even more important because there is optimism—optimism that increased research outputs will translate into discoveries, and those discoveries will ultimately lead to the new treatments and the cure that we all wish to see. Just this week, researchers at the University of Aberdeen found that the same proteins thought to contribute to MND can be found in the gut many years before brain symptoms crop up. Those amazing findings have led researchers to suggest that it could be possible to detect and act on MND long before the brain is affected. Not only would additional funding from the UK Government result in an increase in MND investment, but it might contribute to tackling other neurological diseases.
We cannot allow such diseases to progress. Instead, we as a society must progress, find treatments to help those who are suffering, and then prevent others from suffering also.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Motor neurone disease is an incredibly cruel and scary illness. It can strike anyone at any time. It can knock young and healthy people down in their prime. What makes this disease so frightening is the fear of the unknown. There is no cure for it. We do not know why it occurs. All that makes it even more remarkable that so many brave people suffering from MND find the courage to speak out candidly and publicly about their condition. I pay tribute to all those who campaign so passionately to find a cure, especially those who suffer from the awful effects that the disease causes to them personally. In this debate, however, I want to highlight one particular inspirational person who suffers from MND, and whom I am proud to say I represent as his Member of Parliament in the Scottish Borders.
Long before he was told he had MND six years ago, my constituent Doddie Weir was a hero to people across the Borders and all over Scotland, but he has become even more of a hero since his diagnosis. In his playing days he was a tartan colossus, a giant of Scottish sport. He was a big character on the pitch at Murrayfield—once famously described by the Scottish commentator Bill McLaren as being
“on the charge like a mad giraffe”.
However, Doddie is an even bigger character off the park. He lives his life to the fullest, even now. His positive energy is infectious. When anyone has been around Doddie, they are happier for it. He fought hard every time he took to the rugby pitch, and he continues to fight, even harder, on his mission to find a cure for MND.
I cannot say enough how much I admire Doddie for remaining relentlessly positive, no matter what life throws at him. Receiving an honorary degree earlier this year in Scotland, he said:
“Six years later, still fighting, still pushing for that cure, and still winning with every new day. If things don’t go your way, don’t give up. Instead, use your tremendous energy and brains, try again. There’s always a way round, another way to achieve your goals—find it.”
We owe it to Doddie and everyone in his position to keep fighting for a cure, and we owe it to Doddie to listen closely to his frank assessment of the Government’s funding for research. He said recently that the Government needed to act with more urgency. He said that the fight for a cure was
“definitely getting better but the government has not given MND the money they promised.”
He also said:
“The current process for accessing the money is just not delivering for the MND community. It needs to be streamlined or the professors will spend their valuable time writing multiple applications instead of tackling MND.”
Last year, the Government made a generous and welcome commitment to invest £50 million in motor neurone disease research. I was incredibly proud to play my part in pushing for that funding towards a cure for the devastating disease. That victory, won overwhelmingly by Doddie’s relentless campaigning, was a wonderful display of compassionate government; it is one of the finest actions that this Conservative Government have taken.
But just as Doddie never stopped on the pitch and continues never to stop loving life, we must keep pushing to make sure that this vital funding reaches the frontline faster. Today I want to urge the Government and the Minister to listen to Doddie and do what he asks—not just for his sake, but for every patient in need of some hope. I urge them to provide more resources for MND research, to improve the process and to deliver on our promises. Let us continue to play our part in finding a cure for this awful disease.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for setting the scene so well. I also commend others for their contributions and look forward to those to come from Back Benchers, the shadow Minister and the Minister.
Most of us here will be aware of what MND is: a fatal, rapidly progressive disease that affects the brain and the spinal cord and attacks the nerves that control movement so that muscles no longer work, leaving the sufferer locked in a failing body unable to move, talk or, eventually, breathe, although their mind remains completely intact—a prisoner in their own body. It affects people from all communities, classes and cultures and it is equally devastating to them all. It is a death sentence for too many, killing a third of people within a year and more than half within two years of diagnosis. Six people per day are diagnosed with MND in the UK. It affects up to 5,000 adults in the UK at any one time and kills six people per day—just under 2,200 per year. Currently, it has no cure.
Others have referred to those they have known and to inspirational sportspeople. Back in 2010, before I came here, I was a member of Ards and North Down Borough Council. I had a good friend and colleague—an alderman; we came from different political parties, but worked together on so many things. I was elected here in the May, but met him—I am not going to mention his name—at an event at Portavogie in the September. I said, “You don’t look too well.” He said, “Jim, I’m not well.” When I asked him what was wrong, he told me that he had MND. I visited him as his health deteriorated. I watched an exuberant, energetic gentleman, who was very much aware of what was happening around him, go downhill rapidly. He lasted only slightly over a year. I also remember the impact on his family, who ended up selling the house, which had too many bad memories for his wife and children. They moved on. That is my personal knowledge of how the disease affects people.
I want to comment about Northern Ireland, which is not the Minister’s responsibility so I am not expecting an answer. I will give a perspective of how we do it back home—or perhaps, in this case, what do we not do, although we should.
People with MND in Northern Ireland have a worse standard of care and access to specialist help and support than those in any other part of the United Kingdom. There is a lack of specialists and multidisciplinary care for people with MND in Northern Ireland, where only one part-time specialist neurologist is available. They are available for only one day per month to help people with MND—my goodness! That inevitably leads to longer waiting times for diagnoses of MND and in turn to poorer outcomes and potentially shorter life expectancy post diagnosis. There is only one specialist MND nurse in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that does not have an MND care co-ordinator. We fall badly short of what is needed.
The situation for carers in Northern Ireland, both paid and especially unpaid, is a matter of shame. Carers receive almost no support, but they are a vital part of the lives of those living with MND, particularly in light of the current lack of care provision within the NHS in Northern Ireland. For many reasons, including those outlined above, there has been no specialist research into MND in Northern Ireland. People living with MND in Northern Ireland should be offered full and equitable access to MND research.
I am ever mindful that health is devolved, but has the Minister contacted his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss a UK-wide MND taskforce? MND has been overlooked, and that must be reversed. Northern Ireland can gain and learn from what has been done in England, Scotland and Wales.
After months of dedicated campaigning, the United to End MND coalition of patients, charities and researchers won a huge victory in November 2021 with the news that the Government would invest £50 million over five years in targeted MND research. I thank the Minister, the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, as this funding is welcome. The announcement was made by the then Prime Minister on 14 November 2021, and £50 million was the exact figure requested by the coalition’s submission to the 2021 spending review for the establishment of a virtual MND research institute to initiate a comprehensive five-year plan specifically for translational MND research to accelerate the discovery of treatments for this devastating disease. It is really good news that something like this is coming from the Government.
Since the announcement, the coalition has engaged with both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care, and we understand that BEIS will provide 80% of the funds and DHSC will provide the remaining 20%. This is incredible news, and I ask to Minister to confirm it in his response.
Without the funding, the existing system will not support the infrastructure needed for close collaboration between five of our leading universities and 22 research centres. Without this ongoing close collaboration, game-changing progress cannot be realised. How can we better use the universities and that collaboration? Having full, reliable funding over five years, without the need to reapply repeatedly, will free scientists to conduct science, rather than making time-consuming grant applications, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said. The funding will also support the retention of key staff, and cash will be released at pre-determined time points, according to the approved work plan.
The challenge posed by the existing system is that the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research fund grants of up to £2 million at most, and many grants are for far less. The aim of a co-ordinated national approach is to avoid piecemeal efforts that break the united vision of a single co-ordinated UK team working to cure MND.
The Government’s “Life Sciences Vision,” which seeks to establish the UK’s position as a post-Brexit life sciences superpower, refers to building on the
“ways of working from COVID-19 to tackle future disease challenges”.
We learned a lot from how the Government responded to covid-19, and we can use that expertise to research cures and treatments for MND. One of the vision’s missions is:
“Improving translational capabilities in neurodegeneration”.
MND is the neurodegenerative disease that is most ready for translation. MND is a gateway disease to illnesses such as dementia.
We need to address the cost of living issues with a benefit uplift, increased support for unpaid carers and the provision of access to skilled social workers. These are all essential, and they all need ministerial direction. I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister, who is a dear friend, and the Minister, who has the power to give that direction. People with MND are living in a prison, and we have the ability to open the door and let in some light. I believe we must do that by providing the help they are crying out for.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The issues and concerns about MND were brought back to me in the past few weeks when Jim Hughes, a very prominent local businessman in the community where I live, in Moffat, in my constituency, was taken by the disease. Jim was a larger-than-life character and this just reaffirms that the disease can take anyone.
The disease first came to my attention during the referendum campaign. In the “Better Together” campaign, there was a young man called Gordon Aikman who had worked in the Scottish Parliament for the Labour party and was an important support to Alistair Darling during those activities. Gordon was just in his late 20s and his initial symptoms were very minor—he had a numbness in his fingers, for example. When he went to have some medical examination, he received this dreadful diagnosis. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) mentioned Doddie Weir, as I will, because the disease has often been dwarfed by the courage of those who, like Jimmy, Doddie and Gordon, have been driven to raise awareness of it. Gordon, before he died at only 31, raised half a million pounds, some of it through a dreadful thing—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) will remember—called the ice bucket challenge. People had to appear, often on video, and have a bucket of ice poured over their head. Lord Darling having that done to him was a moment of amusement I will retain.
As well as campaigning, Gordon summoned the strength to give a stark message that, a number of years on, is worth repeating. He said:
“MND is a progressive, neurodegenerative condition that eats away at your body until you can no longer walk, talk, eat or breathe for yourself. There is no cure. Soon it will kill me…It’ll be too late for me, but we can and we must find a cure for the next generation. With your help I can turn a negative into a positive.”
From the experiences that Members have relayed in today’s debate, that is what we want to see the Government do, Minister. We want them to take the negative, and the experiences, passion and fervour of these individuals, and turn that into action.
It has been a huge pleasure for me on a number of occasions to meet Doddie Weir, a giant of a man both on and off the pitch. He has the courage and the ability—I am sure Jimmy Johnstone was the same—to reach out to people who do not necessarily take health seriously and connect. We have heard many discussions in the Chamber about how men, particularly middle-aged and older men, do not take their health seriously, but by working with rugby interests and in communities across the Borders and across Scotland, his My Name’5 Doddie Foundation has been a hugely positive force. For anyone who has not visited its website, let me say that it really is very worthwhile and demonstrates a host of ways in which people can help and become involved. Constituents of mine, such as Hilary Carmichael in Boreland, in Dumfriesshire, who had no personal connection to Doddie have been inspired to campaign locally—to run small events to raise funds. We see that happening across the piece, including to larger organisations such as Peebles rugby football club, which took part in August in the MND big pull weekend. Given all the money that has been raised by Gordon, Doddie and those people who have come to understand and be concerned about the disease, we want to see the Government matching that level of support.
Some of these issues are devolved in Scotland, and the Scottish Government have played a positive part. Indeed, the Euan MacDonald Centre for MND research in Edinburgh is making great strides. There is also research into terazosin, which may be able to slow the progression of MND, and, again, that is to be welcomed, along with the £50 million the Government have already committed and the £375 million for research into neuro- degenerative diseases in general.
However, as Members have indicated, they want to see a vigour and a focus in that research and they want to see the Government playing their part to ensure that we can move, hopefully, towards a cure and a fitting real legacy for people such as Doddie, Gordon, Jimmy Johnstone, and Jim Hughes who have effectively given their life for this disease.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for arranging this very important debate, and to the hon. Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for securing it. I am grateful, too, for the thorough manner in which this debate was opened.
This vital issue clearly has cross-party support. I find myself in complete agreement with all the points that have been made from both sides of the House. I, too, have been impressed by Doddie Weir, whom I met last year before speaking in a previous debate. I was taken by his positivity and energy, which was truly inspirational and something that inspires so many.
I will keep my remarks brief as the points have been so well made by earlier speakers. As we have heard, MND seems like a rare disease, but it is sadly all too common. It is the most common neurodegenerative disease of midlife, and many younger people are also affected. It is currently a terminal and incurable progressive condition. Progression is rapid, with one third of people dying within a year of diagnosis. It is a truly horrible disease. As people with the condition generally die so quickly, only 5,000 people in the UK live with the disease at any one time. However, MND is not rare. One in every 300 people across all communities develops MND in their lifetime, and about 200,000 of the current UK population will die of MND unless effective treatments are found. It is diagnosed in 200 Scots every year, and in more than 1,500 people across the UK.
There are clear links between research and investment in palliative care standards to improve the quality of life of those with MND while research continues to develop. All NHS boards in Scotland have a named MND clinical nurse specialist, either employed directly by the board or provided by a neighbouring board through service level agreements. I encourage the UK Government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government in providing universal free prescriptions. Free prescriptions are just one small way that we can help improve the quality of life of those who have been diagnosed with MND while research is still ongoing. Prescription charges, as we know, were abolished in Scotland in 2011, while in England the current charge is £9.35 per item.
Most worryingly, MND is on the increase, and we do not yet know why. The only effective drug available to fight it is called riluzole or Rilutek, which can deliver a small improvement in patients’ overall survival, but it is not a cure and does not stop the condition progressing.
Last year, I spoke at length on this issue when opening the Petitions Committee debate in July. The urgency and potential benefit of dedicated research funding has been well made over a sustained period by many Members here and Members who were in that previous debate. That need is more urgent than ever now.
The research for new therapies requires a truly multi-disciplinary and pan-national approach, spanning the entire translational pathway. Establishing a virtual MND translational research institute, which campaigners have consistently called for, will deliver that. There is no doubt that extra MND research funding from the UK Government is needed to support effective patient treatment and medicines, in the hope that a cure for MND can be found soon. That is what the petitioners in the previous debate and the sufferers of this disease need, and I believe that it is possible. Sufferers simply do not have time to wait for action. They need results now—their life expectancy is, sadly, too short.
I was truly delighted, therefore, when the UK Government announced the £50 million funding specifically for research into MND last November. I have praised them on the record for it before and I do so again today. I am also grateful that we had confirmation only last month that that funding is ring-fenced. However, I would particularly like to know what progress has been made in allocating the funding. Just when will the consultation on the MND partnership result in a tangible plan? Progress on that feels too slow for my liking, so if the Minister could address those points I would be grateful.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this debate; I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and I welcome the Minister to his place. I also pay tribute to the MND Association, the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation and MND Scotland for their tireless campaigning to improve the lives of people affected by MND.
This has been a short and small, but perfectly formed debate. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his kind words of tribute to Gordon Aikman. I also thank the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who leads for the SNP on these matters.
We know that MND impacts up to 5,000 adults across the whole UK at any one time. Tragically, MND kills one third of people within a year of diagnosis and more than half of people within two years. Many people have experienced the tragedy of motor neurone disease in their own families and communities; I know I am not alone in that. My cousin’s husband tragically died in his late 40s from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, as it is known in the United States. He and my cousin moved there to live their dream, but sadly the dream was shattered by this dreadful disease.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) spoke on behalf of the Opposition in a Westminster Hall debate on MND. She rightly called on the Government to turbocharge investment and reform in MND research, bringing together industry, the public sector and charities to ensure the best possible outcomes for those affected by the condition.
The moral case for investment in research is clear, to help to find treatments to transform the lives of those affected by this condition, but the economic case is just as strong. Treatments in the late stages of MND are up to nine times more expensive than early intervention. Investment into research that enables earlier treatment leads to better outcomes for the NHS and better value for the taxpayer. Investment in MND research also has the huge economic benefit of building on our world-class research and science sector, delivering the high-skilled, well-paid jobs we so badly need.
In November 2021, the Government made a welcome announcement of £50 million of ring-fenced funding into MND research over the next five years. However, almost a year since the promise was made, we still have a long way to go to achieve the progress we need to support those living with MND. Unsurprisingly, given the uncertainty around the future of our economy and the future of our Government, there is also uncertainty about what the future holds for MND and those affected by it.
I will start briefly with the future of MND research. First, when the Minister rises, will he confirm that the pledge of £50 million of ring-fenced money into MND funding is still Government policy? If it is still policy, when will it be delivered? We will support him in turbo- charging that roll-out.
Will the Minister also give assurances about the wider future of R&D spending? As he knows, there are worries in the sector: we are being told that, at the current Chancellor’s forthcoming fiscal event, we can expect cuts to public services and public funding. Should we expect cuts to R&D spending, as many in the science community fear? I hope that is not the case. As the Minister also knows, soaring inflation means that funding counts for less, and the devalued pound means that the cost of the imported equipment and technologies that are crucial to running research laboratories is rising. What assessment has the Minister made of that issue?
Investment in research is crucial to treating MND, but it is not the only thing that matters: if we want to invest in a better future for those with MND, we must also invest in a better future for our NHS and social care system. If we look at the workforce, there are 132,000 vacancies in the NHS and 165,000 vacancies in social care. Given those chronic shortages, it is hardly surprising that, according to the MND Association, more than a third of people with neurological conditions such as MND have reported waiting more than a year between first experiencing symptoms and getting a diagnosis; that only 44% of adults with neurological conditions ever have an appointment with a specialist nurse; and that only 26% of people living with MND receive social care support. Those figures are further proof of the desperate need for a workplace strategy, which this Government have not yet delivered. I hope to impress on the Minister the urgency of that matter. Will the Government listen to the MND Association’s calls for a recovery and respite plan for family carers? As the Minister knows, the enormous stresses that those people are under anyway have been compounded by the impact of the pandemic. Again, if the Government produce such a plan, we will support it.
Finally, providing housing that meets the accessibility needs of people with MND is a vital part of making sure they can maintain their dignity, independence, and the choice to stay in their own home for as long as possible. A guiding principle of Labour’s approach to social care is “home first”, because the vast majority of people want to stay in their home for as long as possible, yet too many struggle to get even the basic support for home adaptations that makes that possible, with a quarter of housing authorities describing their need for accessible homes as severe. Investment and reform in research, the NHS, social care and housing are the steps needed to ensure a better future for those with MND. Labour is committed to delivering that better future, and to supporting this Government to deliver it while they remain in office. Please, let’s just get on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for securing this important debate, and thank everyone who has taken part. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South has been a fantastic champion for research on this cause. I was grateful for his comprehensive speech, and for the chance to speak to him beforehand. He has given me very clear marching orders.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) made important points about head impacts in sport, which is clearly a key priority for research, while my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) gave us the inspiring words of Doddie Weir and made the important point that we must simplify funding for researchers. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a typically compassionate and experienced speech, and made important points about the need for all of us around the UK to learn from each other and the interaction between MND research and research into other diseases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) told us about the inspiring courage of those who have been victims of this terrible disease, but go on to channel that into campaigning for improvements. He also made important points about the need for older people to get themselves checked up, and talked about some of the encouraging research that is happening in Edinburgh.
I was extremely sorry to hear about the terrible personal experiences of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). To answer some of his questions directly at the start, that £50 million is still absolutely Government policy. He was completely correct to highlight the importance of social care, hence our announcement the other day of an extra £500 million for social care.
I pay tribute to all those impacted by MND who dedicate their time to campaigning for a better future, including those involved in the “United to End MND” campaign and the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation. There is a lot that we must be grateful to them for.
MND is a brutal condition. We have heard throughout the debate about the devastating impact on people and their families. We have made great strides in research, but we still do not know exactly what causes motor neurones to die off. I echo the sentiment expressed in the House: we must move fast for people living with MND now and those who will be diagnosed in future. We need a better scientific understanding of the causes and mechanisms of MND, and we need to ensure that we are delivering the highest-quality care and support for those living with it and their families.
I will now talk about how we are supporting people living with MND and then talk about research. People living with MND need treatment and support to ease their symptoms and maintain their independence for as long as possible. As such, NHS England has set out that all services for patients with MND should be specialised, commissioning the specialised care that those patients may receive from 25 specialised neurological treatment centres across England. That includes the prescribing of complex communication devices, to enable people with MND to communicate as effectively as possible; offering non-invasive ventilation to support respiratory function; and compassionate personal care and support that meets people’s individual needs.
In 2019, the National Neurosciences Advisory Group published a toolkit for improving care for progressive neurological conditions, including MND. That toolkit is helping commissioners to make improvements to pathways for people with MND, enabling quicker and more accurate diagnoses. It also helps to commission services that are co-ordinated, flexible and responsive to the rapidly changing needs of the patient, with improved choice in end of life care for people with MND. That will ensure that people with MND receive the best possible care.
We know we need to get things right for people living with MND and other neurological conditions. That is why we are delivering the neuroscience transformation programme, which will support services to deliver the right service at the right time for all neurology patients closer to home. NHS England has appointed a national clinical director for neurology, who will provide national leadership and specialist clinical advice, and an announcement on that is expected imminently.
Through research, we are making major advances in understanding and treating the disease and funding world-class researchers across many of our universities in the UK. We are seeing real progress, and there are many reasons for optimism. The Medical Research Council invested £10.3 million in MND research in 2020-21, supporting vital research to increase understanding of the causes and genetic mechanisms of MND. At the UK Dementia Research Institute, scientists are investigating the root causes of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS—the most common form of MND—and identifying ways to protect brain cells from damage. Earlier this year, the researchers developed a test to detect abnormal protein in the brain. This protein causes 40% of familial ALS cases—that is, ALS that occurs in more than one family member. That highly sensitive test is now being used in a clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of a new treatment for ALS.
At the Francis Crick Institute, researchers are working with stem cells to investigate the molecular processes that cause MND. That research is identifying what may go wrong with neurones, to find ways to treat the underlying disease mechanisms. The National Institute for Health and Care Research translates scientific breakthroughs into treatments that will benefit patients. The NIHR spent £3.2 million on MND research last year, supporting research on care and quality of life, as well as trials of new therapies. Researchers at NIHR’s biomedical research centre in Sheffield have pioneered evidence-based interventions to manage the symptoms of MND. For example, many people with MND struggle to consume sufficient calories, even though there is evidence that eating a high-calorie diet may improve survival. Researchers are developing nutritional interventions to support people with MND in eating a high-calorie diet, which may enhance their quality of life.
The NIHR is also supporting trials of potential new therapies to treat the underlying disease. One study under way is the Lighthouse 2 study, which will test the effectiveness of Triumeq, a repurposed drug from the treatment of HIV, in improving survival rate, function and quality of life for people with MND. In September, NIHR-funded scientists reported findings from a phase 3 trial of the drug tofersen. The trial showed that the drug can slow and reduce progression of the disease in patients with MND caused by the faulty SOD1 gene.
During the debate, we have heard about the need for greater investment in MND research. We have already talked about the £50 million that we are investing over the next five years, and that commitment was reaffirmed in September and again today. That money is available to apply for now from the NIHR and UKRI, and officials continue to work closely with the MND research community and those in aligned scientific disciplines to ensure that the scientific ambitions for MND research can be realised.
In June, we launched a new £4.25-million collaborative partnership, which is jointly funded between Government and charity partners, to bring the MND research community together. That partnership will be led by Professors Ammar Al-Chalabi and Chris McDermott. I know that they and the patient group that has been campaigning for greater investment in MND research are optimistic about the opportunities that the new partnership will provide. Some of its key aims are: to develop better ways to clinically measure MND progression, to develop a bank of human cell models on which to test new therapies, and to improve MND registers so that doctors can collect detailed, high-quality data about the disease. We also launched an NIHR highlight notice on MND to signal to the research community that MND is a priority area and to invite ambitious research proposals from all researchers working in MND and aligned scientific areas.
I am sympathetic to researchers who want to minimise the number of applications that they have to make to secure funding, which is why, during the summer, officials from the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the NIHR and the Medical Research Council met researchers linked to the United to End MND campaign to discuss how the MND research community could effectively access funding through a smaller number of focused applications. The NIHR and the MRC look forward to seeing those applications when they come in and to talking more about how we simplify things.
I personally welcome the opportunity to meet some of those researchers in due course to discuss their progress and how we can further streamline funding and avoid wasting researchers’ time with lots of applications for small penny packets of research funding. That is an important priority in research across the piece, but it is more important in this area than anywhere else, because the research is so urgent and there are many people desperate to see progress. I am keen to meet those researchers and take that forward.
Motor neurone disease is a priority for the Government. I am encouraged that we are seeing progress in research. We will continue to invest in MND research and work with charities, the research community, and people with MND and their families to build on the successes and deliver breakthroughs for people living with MND now and in future.
Andrew Lewer
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate—I will not name them because I do not want to miss anyone—for their powerful speeches and for being here. It illustrates the importance of the work of the all-party parliamentary group, which provides an opportunity to work together and put political differences to one side for the benefit of our constituents. We know about dashing around for APPGs and emailing people to get them to turn up, but I never have to do that for the APPG on motor neurone disease; we always pack the room when we have a meeting.
The Minister has listened closely to the debate and the contributions of hon. Members, including the Front Benchers. His comments have been very encouraging, especially about getting to grips with red tape. He also made reference to the Francis Crick Institute—Francis Crick was, of course, a Northampton man.
“Moonshot” is the word used for MND research, but the genetic breakthroughs that I spoke about earlier mean that we now know where the moon is and we have a good idea how to get there. That £50 million can help us to achieve a cure for MND, but we need more haste in getting launched and onwards to the dream. What we have heard today has been really encouraging in that regard.
I thank all those at the MND Association for all their hard work and support over the years for me, and for the contribution that other key charities, such as MND Scotland and My Name’5 Doddie Foundation, make towards this work. That led to United to End MND, which has really punched through, as I described in my speech earlier.
This debate has focused on those who suffer from MND and their tremendous courage in facing something that none of us wants to face. We can hardly imagine the severity and experience of those who go through it and those who care for them and love them. I hope that we have demonstrated today that we take those suffering seriously and we take the inspiration that they provide us with seriously. It is a tribute to those who care for them that we are all so determined to help to find a way forward for people so that they do not have to suffer in that way in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of investing in the future of Motor Neurone Disease.
Fuel Poverty in Manchester Gorton
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
No one can deny that we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Many of our constituents will be looking in despair at their energy bills. Some of them will, maybe for the first time, be worrying about how to make ends meet, and having to make a decision that it is unlikely any of us in this House will have to make—choosing between heating and eating.
A few weeks ago, one constituent in Abbey Hey told me:
“I have no idea how I will manage these next few months. I will only put on the heating in one room if the temperature goes below zero. I only heat my kettle twice per day and cook hot food only three times per week to save electricity.”
It is outrageous and shameful that here, in one of the richest countries in the world, anyone is forced to limit the number of times they can cook per week because they cannot afford the energy used, but this is not unusual.
Staff at Fallowfield & Withington food bank tell me people are requesting meals and ingredients that cook fast as they cannot afford to keep their cooker on for more than a few minutes. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Fallowfield & Withington food bank and all the other food banks working in my constituency for all their incredible work to support my constituents. I will be following closely their new collaboration with the green doctors to support residents saving on energy bills by becoming more energy efficient.
Another constituent, a lone parent with three children in Fallowfield who is working two jobs to make ends meet, wrote to me desperate for help. She told me she has no idea how she and her children can make it through the winter warm and fed. Numerous churches, schools and community centres have written to me expressing the impact of energy bills that are four to five times higher than they were last winter. Many of these places—including Manley Park Methodist church, Longsight Makki Masjid mosque and the Levenshulme Inspire centre, as well as our fantastic Manchester City Council libraries—want to remain open as warm hubs for those who cannot afford heating at home, but growing energy bills alongside inflation make this so much harder for these organisations. I am grateful to these places for remaining open for those most vulnerable in our society, and I am grateful for our food banks, their staff and volunteers.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way, and I would just like to echo his thanks for the work of Fallowfield & Withington food bank, which does a fantastic job in my constituency as well. We obviously need to tackle energy prices and bills now, but does he agree with me that the long-term strategy needs to be a massive programme of retrofitting houses to make them insulated for the future, which will not only reduce bills for the future, but tackle the climate crisis?
Afzal Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with him, and I will be touching on that subject as well.
No one should ever be put in such a situation. The cost of living crisis makes this debate feel timely, but it would be wrong to say that fuel poverty is new. The most recent available official statistics are from 2020, before the current cost of living crisis. They indicate that 10,364 households in my constituency were in fuel poverty—that is 24%—which was the sixth highest proportion in England and Wales, and the highest in the north-west. In some parts of my constituency, notably Fallowfield, Rusholme and Longsight, the picture is even bleaker, with nearly 40% of households affected in some areas.
I am not sure whether levelling up is still Government policy, but the statistics show significant regional inequality. The south-east has just under half the proportion of houses in poverty than the north-west—I note that the Surrey constituency of this week’s Chancellor has only 7% of households in fuel poverty, which is less than a third of the number in my constituency. There is also a racial disparity: the proportion of ethnic minority households in fuel poverty is 1.5 times that of their counterparts who identify as white. Purely anecdotally, it is notable that cities and towns such as Manchester, Bradford, Wolverhampton, Walsall and Birmingham, which have high proportions of people of south Asian heritage, are disproportionately represented in the top 50% of households in fuel poverty.
It is important to recognise that fuel poverty is more than being chilly. It is not a case of just putting on another jumper, and it has been shown that cold homes worsen respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease, poor mental health and dementia. A review by the Institute of Health Equity led by Sir Michael Marmot indicated that diseases linked to cold and damp cost the national health service £6.9 million a day. Fuel poverty has a disproportionate impact on children. In addition to impacting on their health, according to a report from the Childhood Trust fuel poverty has a number of additional indirect impacts, such as lower rates of educational attainment, and it places strain on young people’s mental health.
Although low pay, insufficient welfare support or unemployment are factors in fuel poverty, as are global energy prices, there are structural reasons why people from less affluent neighbourhoods are more at risk of falling into fuel poverty. For example, many of my constituents, who are generally in private rented accommodation, are forced to use prepayment meters for electricity and gas. Households with prepayment meters pay what Fair By Design calls a “poverty premium”. They are forced to pay suppliers’ standard rates without being able to enter fixed-rate contracts, and unlike many others, they were immediately affected by hikes in retail energy prices. They are subject to higher standing charges that apply even if no energy is used, and they are unable to access discounts for direct debit payments or paperless billing. That leads to households simply cutting themselves off. If customers with traditional meters do not pay their bill, their energy company might be able to offer them support. If those on a prepayment meter do not have enough money, they simply do not top up, yet they still rack up more debt because of the standing charges. All that adds up, and we know that people with prepayment electricity meters are three times more likely to be in fuel poverty than those with a traditional meter.
In my constituency, Edwardian terraces are the most common form of housing. Now more than a century old, they were built long before modern energy efficient building techniques and insulation. Many residents cannot afford to improve the energy efficiency of their home, or they live in privately rented accommodation and are therefore at the mercy of a landlord. To address fuel poverty we must acknowledge the need for retrofitting—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) made that point earlier. Retrofitting would address not only cold homes but the UK’s carbon emissions, because 23% of all emissions come from home heating and powering. The least energy efficient houses pay over £900 per year more on their bills.
As the Minister will know, the Government previously ran the green homes grant voucher scheme which—let us face it—was a failure. It completed work on only 7% of the projected targets, and only 224 energy efficiency measures were installed in my constituency.
The average person cannot do this on their own. The estimated cost of a full-property retrofit is £25,000 to £30,000, which would be impossible for most people to pay, let alone those struggling to pay their energy bills. That is why the Government must create a scheme to get homes insulated and retrofitted. It must be a scheme that works, creates green jobs and helps working-class families to heat their homes.
We should acknowledge the work by organisations such as People Powered Retrofit which are helping to tackle the skills gap across the construction sector by offering “retrofit fundamental” courses. Such courses provide the background knowledge needed to begin green construction.
There are great local projects happening in Manchester and across the country. I draw the House’s attention to the work of the Carbon Co-op and its Levenshulme area-based retrofit scheme. The scheme shows the savings from and benefits of a street-by-street approach to home retrofits and how retrofit can be made a possibility for homeowners who may never have had the opportunity otherwise.
Jeff Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. May I add to his comments the example of the Arrowfield Road estate in Chorlton in my constituency, where Southway Housing is, alongside a new heat pumps programme, retrofitting the houses on the estate? That will make a significant difference to the bills and warmth for those houses.
Afzal Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. The more of those schemes, the better.
As we all know, net zero by 2050 is a guideline, but we do not have until 2050 to make serious changes to our emissions. We are already seeing the detrimental effects of climate change. Just recently, we saw devastating floods in Pakistan, where an area the size of the UK was under water and overnight 33 million people became refugees in their own country. Scientists have said that the impact was worse due to climate change. That is why we must treat energy issues as environmental issues. If the whole of the UK was powered by renewables, solar would use only 2.1% of land, which is roughly the same amount currently used by golf courses. Some might say that would be a good swap.
Fuel poverty is an issue of dignity. Households deserve to eat and feel warm this winter and every winter. No one should be made to spend hours on a bus to stay warm or skip meals because they cannot afford the energy that they would use, and no child should go to bed cold.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on securing this important debate. His wider engagement on the matter clearly demonstrates his commitment to his constituents in Gorton, to Manchester and to those households facing financial challenge more widely across the UK. I thank him for that. I understand the challenges that people face when they are severely cold in their own homes. I remember how, when I was a student—I am not trying to create a comparison—and our heating had gone, I had to sleep at night with jeans and tracksuit bottoms on just to try to keep warm. This is a very real issue for people, and at the heart of all of this we must remember the individuals facing these challenges. I was pleased to see his humanity come through in his speech. I welcome our engagement on the debate, because this is truly an important matter.
I also thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) for his contribution. I remember fondly our time co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on mental health. I know of his passion for people and, in particular, as was alluded to, the mental health impact of fuel poverty, especially as we hit the cold of the winter months.
I assure the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton that fuel poverty remains a key concern for the Government. Recent increases in energy prices and the cost of living are having a significant impact on all households, but we know that many low-income households were already struggling. I assure him that the Government are taking the situation very seriously and have already taken action to support many of those in greatest need.
I thank everyone who has spoken for sharing their experience today. For all the reasons discussed, the Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty and supporting households in both the short and long term. This winter we are focusing on how best to help those struggling to keep their homes warm against the backdrop of high energy bills and cost of living pressures. That is why the Government are providing direct support to households. The energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme are supporting millions of households and businesses with rising energy costs, and the Chancellor made clear they will continue to do so until April next year.
Those recent announcements are in addition to the wider support to help households with the impacts of unprecedented global gas price rises set out earlier in the year. Most households will be impacted in some way by high energy prices. That is why the Government are providing support through the energy bill support scheme, which provides a £400 discount for around 29 million households. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that will no doubt help many of his constituents and reassure them.
However, we recognise that not all households will be impacted equally and that we need to ensure targeted support is available to those who need it most. That is why, in May, the Government announced a support package to combat the increased cost of living. This support is targeted particularly at those with the greatest need, providing 8 million of the most vulnerable households with up to £1,200 of support in instalments across the year. That includes support for those on means-tested benefits, older households who are more vulnerable to the cold, and households requiring disability support who may have higher energy costs as a result. Further help is available for low-income and more vulnerable households through established schemes such as the winter fuel payment, the cold weather payment and the warm home discount. The warm home discount has been extended to 2025-26 and expanded to support 750,000 more households, while increasing rebates to £150. We have also reformed the scheme in England and Wales to provide more rebates automatically and to better target households in fuel poverty.
As well as immediate support to help households stay warm this winter, improving the energy efficiency of homes —this was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in his excellent speech and in interventions—remains the best long-term solution to reducing energy bills and, therefore, tackling fuel poverty in a more sustainable and long-term way. Energy efficiency improvements can help make it cheaper and easier to heat a home, enabling warmer, safer homes with reduced carbon emissions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the floods in Pakistan. They had a dramatic impact on many people in my constituency of Watford, where there was a fundraiser for the many friends and family members who were impacted by the floods. Climate change is a huge issue for us all and the Government are committed to tackling it.
The energy company obligation is delivering measures across Great Britain. ECO4, the current iteration of the scheme, which runs until 2026, has an increased value of £1 billion per year. In Gorton, up to March 2022, over 10,700 households had been in receipt of ECO measures. I believe that that is in the upper scale of communities across the UK who have received them. That help is ensuring long-lasting, sustained improvements are available for those households.
We have also recently announced energy efficiency support through ECO Plus, which will help hundreds of thousands of households reduce their energy bills. ECO Plus will be worth £1 billion and deliver an average household saving of around £280 per year, with at least half of the support directly targeted at the most vulnerable, which is where we are really making sure that we are supporting as best we can. The local authority delivery scheme is prioritising homes with some of the lowest energy efficiency ratings. More than 200 local authorities took part in phase 1 of the scheme and participation increased further through phase 2. The first phase of LAD led to 560 homes being upgraded in Greater Manchester and more than 630 homes have been upgraded in phase 2.
The social housing decarbonisation fund will upgrade a significant amount of social housing stock to an energy performance certification rating of C. The total sum committed for that fund and associated demonstrator is more than £1 billion. Manchester City Council received around £3 million in grant funding to upgrade around 90 homes under the SHDF demonstrator, and Greater Manchester Combined Authority received around £10.5 million in grant funding in SHDF wave 1 to upgrade 1,286 homes. The engagement of local authorities, energy companies, industry and the local community and support sector has been pivotal in delivering those schemes and will remain essential. I thank everyone for their continued commitment.
I thank the hon. Gentleman, in particular, for raising this issue. This is such an important debate, but hopefully, when his constituents hear about it—he will no doubt share the video or the Hansard entry—they will note the number of schemes available to them, which will help to reassure them about the support that is available. We are trying to ensure that, at the heart of Government, we provide support to those who are struggling with their energy bills and energy costs, and particularly to those who are in fuel poverty, which is a key part of this. I also reassure them that, although there are challenges, and I appreciate the concerns that they may have—we mentioned mental health earlier—help is out there. I am sure that if his constituents write to him, they will get guidance on where to find that support. Finally, I thank him and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington for their excellent points and for raising this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 6 July 2022, will make exclusivity terms unenforceable in contracts that entitle workers to earn net average weekly wages that do not exceed the lower earnings limit—currently £123 a week—ensuring that that such workers are not restricted by exclusivity terms. It will give such workers the right to take on additional employment without being subjected to detriment and—applicable only to employees—unfair dismissal.
The measures we are introducing will increase participation in the labour market and, together with our agenda to boost productivity, will drive higher employment, wages and economic growth. We want to give businesses the confidence to hire and retain workers and to provide their workforce with the skills and experience they need to progress in work. We want to put more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances, and we want to enable workers to reskill so they can make the most of the economic opportunities and to best deploy themselves to drive growth and productivity in the economy.
During the cost of living crisis, we will continue to protect vulnerable workers. The measures will help to ensure that low-income workers can boost their incomes with additional work should they so wish. That builds on the support we have given to many workers during the cost of living crisis: in April, we raised the national living wage to £9.50, equivalent to a pay rise of more than £1,000 for a full-time worker; we gave 1.7 million families an extra £1,000 a year on average through our cut to the universal credit taper and increased work allowances; and a new in-work progression offer will mean that 2.1 million low-paid workers on universal credit will be able to access personalised work coach support to help them increase their earnings. The reforms reflect the Government’s ongoing commitment to protect and enhance workers’ rights across the country.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister is typically generous in giving way. There is some concern that exclusivity terms are unenforceable under the lower earnings limit. Why have the Government chosen that route and not, for example, that of the European Union directive on transparent and predictable working conditions?
Dean Russell
I will come to that point later. I do intend to respond.
I will take a moment to walk through what the draft regulations do. This statutory instrument will extend the protections in the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015. The existing regulations make exclusivity terms unenforceable in zero-hours contracts where previously they were banned from doing work under any other contract or arrangement, or barred from doing so without the employer’s consent. We are making further revisions to extend the protection to individuals who work under workers’ contracts and earn less than or equal to the lower earnings limit, ensuring that they may take on additional work to boost their income should they wish to do so.
The draft regulations will also extend to those workers the right to redress, so that they have the right not to be subjected to any detriment by a non-compliant employer. If they breach an exclusivity clause in their contract, that will be subject to the regulations. For employees, any dismissal for that reason will be regarded as unfair. All workers subject to any detriment will have the right to bring a claim or a complaint to an employment tribunal.
A second, separate statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure will be laid in Parliament after the draft regulations are approved. That is necessary to make the right to bring a claim under the regulations subject to early conciliation, which is a requirement set out in the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. That separate statutory instrument will mean that a prospective claimant wishing to take a case to the employment tribunal must first contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service about their dispute and consider conciliation before presenting a claim to the employment tribunal. The second SI will also amend the regulations to extend the time limit for making a claim to consider this application of early conciliation.
The provisions of the 2015 regulations make unenforceable exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts, but they do not cover such contracts where only one hour or limited hours are guaranteed, which leaves some of the most vulnerable workers in our society subject to exclusivity terms while their weekly income is low. Those low-income workers are significantly more likely than the average worker to want to undertake additional work.
In recent years, we have seen a rise in the use of short-term variable hours contracts. That has been very positive for some people, with the flexibility on offer helping those with other commitments stay in work or get back into the labour market. For others, such contracts have resulted in a level of unpredictability that has made it difficult to plan their lives effectively or have the financial security they need. We want to protect those who are most in need and address inequality, so that everyone has the opportunity to participate in a labour market, enjoy a fulfilling working life and make a living, especially during a cost of living crisis.
The Government consulted on the policy in the regulations between December 2020 and February 2021. The consultation generated 30 formal responses from a range of legal organisations and professionals, along with trade unions, academics, local government and equalities groups. Overall, responses showed wide support for our policy proposals to extend the range of contracts in which exclusivity clauses should be made unenforceable.
An estimated 1.5 million workers receive a weekly wage that is below the lower earnings limit in their main job. The reforms will ensure that workers in that group that have exclusivity clauses are able to top up their income with extra work if they choose. Workers will have more flexibility in when and where they work to best suit their personal circumstances and commitments, such as childcare or study, including the option of working multiple short-hours contracts.
Businesses will benefit from a widening of the talent pool of job applicants to include those who would have otherwise been prevented from applying for roles due to exclusivity clauses with another employer. The reforms could also create more opportunities for low-paid workers to reskill as they take on additional work where desired, allowing individuals to make the most of new opportunities in existing sectors with growing labour demand, as well as in emerging sectors and occupations.
The Government want to ensure that businesses and individuals can make the most of the opportunities in our flexible and dynamic UK labour market to generate long-term economic growth and prosperity. The reforms will help us deliver on the ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and do business by putting more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to his place—I think this is our first formal engagement. I am grateful to him for setting out the context for the regulations.
The precarious nature of work is at the forefront of many people’s minds at the moment. We are all determined to address that and, for that reason, we do not oppose the regulations. We welcome any step, however modest, to tackle the problems in the country’s labour market, and by any measure, today’s proposals are pretty modest in scope. I note that the statutory instrument is numbered 000; I do not know if that is a drafter getting a little bit carried away, but I am sure that it is not the correct number for the regulations.
As we have heard, the regulations are not just about zero-hours contracts but about some of the most low-paid people in society. We cannot separate what is in the regulations from the wider context of our current situation. The regulations may be presented as part of the Government’s post-covid plans to “build back fairer” or framed as part of the battle against one-sided flexibility, but we need to stop for a minute and consider the two key contextual issues that are unavoidable in today’s debate. At the forefront of our minds should be the experience of the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015, which are in many ways the progenitor of today’s regulations, alongside the Government’s continued failure to deliver on their own commitments to improve worker’s rights.
A departmental press release from May this year said that the regulations
“will give workers more flexibility over when and where they work”
and will
“help increase businesses’ confidence to create jobs”.
It is very difficult to see how the our current circumstances will create much business confidence, but even in the very best of times, these measures are only one small step to tackle the imbalance between too many employers and employees across the country. If the Government are serious about tackling the imbalance associated with low pay and insecure work, more will have to be done.
The draft regulations are unlikely to deal with some of the core issues affecting those in low-paid work, such as being compelled to accept any shift offered at short notice, and having no remedy if one is cancelled at short notice. Workers on zero-hours contracts still feel worried about losing favour with their employer if they refuse work, despite having had protection from exclusivity clauses for well over seven years. Despite the Government promising to address these problems since their acceptance of the Taylor review in 2018, flexibility still rests primarily with the employer.
Is it not a sad indictment of our current labour market that the principle of someone being able to take up another job alongside another low-paid job is being championed as a major step forward towards a fairer labour market? Can we not do better? Do hard-working people not deserve the right to more predictable contracts? For the record, that was a Conservative manifesto commitment in 2019. Do they not deserve a fair notice period for their shifts, enabling them to plan their life, their caring responsibilities and even, God forbid, their social life? So while we welcome the regulations as a step to provide some extra security, we have to accept that this is just a small step when huge leaps are required.
The campaign group Zero Hours Justice has kindly provided a briefing for Members on today’s legislation. I have found that group’s work and its intimate understanding of the 2015 regulations to be useful and relevant. As I mentioned earlier, it has been more than seven years since the original regulations were introduced, so we have to ask what the results of those regulations have been. Given the casework that Zero Hours Justice continues to receive, we can be clear that the regulations have not ended the feeling of compulsion towards accepting shifts and the insecurity that that brings. It has reports from many people, including one who talked about
“getting hours at the last minute and having to make urgent arrangements for childcare or other caring responsibilities or cancel social plans.”
One airport worker reported that they would
“often only get one hour’s notice before a shift”.
Another said:
“Spending time with my family was really difficult as I never knew if I would be working or not”.
There was a common fear of refusing hours in case doing so resulted in fewer hours being offered, or bullying and harassment by the employer or manager. A worker told Zero Hours Justice that:
“If I said I couldn’t work one day, I was told I was not working for the rest of the week. I was told I wasn’t wanted at all that week.”
Those are some of the real challenges people on zero-hours contracts face. What is the Government’s response to deal with those challenges?
It would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister to provide us with a view on whether the original regulations have in fact been a success. It is striking that the post-implementation review of the original 2015 regulations commented that no formal disputes involving the regulations had been recorded in the tribunal system. There may be many reasons for that, but the explanations proffered by stakeholders who were surveyed paints a worrying picture. A major concern is that the 2015 changes were not adequately communicated by the Government to employers and employees. As workers can only assert their rights if they are aware of them, good pieces of legislation can fail to deliver on their promise if communication is inadequate. How does the Minister intend to remedy that situation with the regulations before us today?
Of course, the problems could be much more systemic. Are the costs, or even just the perceived costs, of tribunals too high for workers to take their cases forward? I note that recently, in a response to a written parliamentary question, the Minister stated that the median cost for obtaining legal representation for a tribunal claim was £2,500. To put that into the context of today’s regulations, that is more than four months’ pay for someone seeking to enforce their rights under these regulations. I am sure the Minister can see why that might prove to be a serious barrier to justice. What can be done, either financially or through greater information and representation, to ensure that those who wish to seek legal redress under these regulations are able to do so?
I also suggest that requiring workers to undertake the calculations mentioned in regulation 5 in particular will require some serious heavy lifting in terms of public information being transmitted to workers so that they know whether they are covered by these regulations. It is not a straightforward calculation; it is not that easy to say what your average earnings will be without reference to some calculations. How many people will actually benefit from these regulations? We know from what the Minister said that around 1.5 million workers are currently earning below the lower earnings limit, but how many of those have exclusivity clauses in their contracts? If the Minister is able to answer that, that would be useful.
Ultimately, this instrument ought to be viewed in the context of half a decade of failures to deliver on promises to Britain’s workforce. It has been over five years now since the much-lauded Taylor review reported and over four and a half years since the Government accepted many of the report’s findings, and we are now coming up to three years since the Conservative party committed in their manifesto to tackle abuses of employment law and to implement genuine flexibility. We have been taunted time and again with the promise of an employment Bill that looks like it is not going to see the light of day. The Minister will probably not be aware that I took every opportunity to ask his predecessor when we could expect to see the employment Bill, so I will ask the same question of him. Sadly, I expect the same answer as his predecessor gave—the timeless classic, “When parliamentary time allows.” If we hear something different from the new Minister, that would be welcome.
Looking at the rest of the Taylor review, it is important in the context of these regulations to see that it also recommended that workers on zero-hours contracts who have been in post for 12 months should have a right to request a contract that better reflects the hours they work. That recommendation was accepted by the Government in their “Good Work Plan”, which was published in 2018. The Low Pay Commission also recommended a stronger “right to switch” to stable hours, as well as a right to reasonable notice of shifts and shift cancellations. Consultation on notice of shifts and shift cancellations took place between July and October 2019, but the response to that consultation is yet to be published. If the Minister can update us on progress in that respect, I will be grateful.
It is not just the limitations of the current legislation and the wider context that are disappointing; there are a number of specific points in the regulations themselves on which I would be grateful for clarification. First—the hon. Member for Glasgow South West asked about his, but I do not think was fully answered by the Minister—why have we chosen to go for the lower earnings limit? Why has that threshold been chosen rather than another? In the consultation, several ways to decide the beneficiaries of this legislation were put forward. Suggestions ranged from using objective measures, such as only accepting exclusivity clauses for the protection of intellectual property or for health and safety reasons, to other earnings-based approaches. In their response to the consultation paper, the TUC suggested that the Government should consider or, at the very least, explain why they do not wish to adopt the same approach laid out in the European Union's directive on transparent and predictable working conditions. In particular, it stated that the Government should consider ensuring that
“an employer neither prohibits a worker from taking up employment with other employers, outside the work schedule established with that employer, nor subjects a worker to adverse treatment for doing so.”
I know that the current vogue in the Government is automatically to dismiss as undesirable anything that comes from Brussels, but there is much to commend in that approach and I would be grateful if the Minister explained to the Committee why he chose not to take it.
It is disappointing that a threshold of even the national minimum wage or the national living wage has not been adopted, which would have extended support to many more workers than the lower earnings limit. Indeed, in the consultation carried out for the 2015 regulations there was a suggestion that exclusivity clauses would be banned for anyone earning less than £20 an hour, which is obviously a significant way away from where we are today. The true cost of that choice to workers was clearly highlighted in the consultation, in which it was stated that earnings-based thresholds become targets to exploit.
The fact that the Government still actively chose the lowest reasonable income-based threshold tells us that there is far more to do in this area, and that is compounded when we look at the implications for those claiming universal credit. It is a legal requirement that those working less than 35 hours on the minimum wage, which is currently £332 a week for those over 23, be actively seeking additional work as a condition of receiving their allowance. What assurances can the Government give to those earning above the current lower earnings level of £123 per week but below the universal credit threshold of £332 about exclusivity clauses that may remain in their contracts? Will they face sanctions if they are unable to take additional work? Will the Government consider extending the scope of the regulations to cover those people as a result of what may well be some difficult conversations?
What steps will be taken to protect those who may earn below the lower earnings limit but may not be covered by the regulations because they are classed as self-employed? I am not talking about people who are genuinely self-employed, but those who are working in the gig economy and are often placed on highly restrictive contracts that do not offer the genuine freedom that self-employment provides. I think we all know the kinds of contracts that I am talking about.
Speaking of the effectiveness of the regulations, it would also be useful to have an assessment of how effective previous measures have been. As I have said, it is unclear what impact the 2015 regulations have had. While there are clear differences between workers on low pay and those on zero-hours contracts, they share the insecurity about accepting other sources of income, which the instrument is designed to challenge. It would be reassuring and helpful to hear how the Minister will evaluate both today’s regulations and the previous ones.
The Minister mentioned the follow-up regulations, which will enshrine the right of legal redress. As we know, due to the implementation of the compulsory extra hurdle of ACAS conciliation that the Government have introduced, those rights do not become live until the early conciliation process is enshrined in law, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an assurance, and ideally a date by which the Government are committed to introducing those regulations, so that the rights that we are considering today become enforceable.
Finally, I wonder why we have taken so long to get to this point. I refer not only to the commitments made by the Government but to the Taylor report. We are seven years on from the original regulations, the review of which took place over 18 months ago. That it has taken us until today to get to where we are now seem like slow progress, but overall this is a welcome first step. In today’s climate, though, and given that the Government were elected on a promise of delivering more wide-ranging labour market reforms to create genuine fairness and flexibility, much more needs to be done.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson.
I welcome the statutory instrument, but agree with the shadow Minister that much more is required. I thank him for mentioning, I think clause by clause, my private Member’s Bill, the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill. Given that the Minister has been in post a while and is perhaps, in current terms, a veteran at ministerial level, will he meet me to discuss its provisions? It touches on the issues that we are dealing with today, some of which I will come on to. The shadow Minister had obviously seen my speech before he got to his feet, because I will now reiterate just about every point that he made—perhaps more quickly, which will delight some hon. Members, though not all, I see.
I wish to pursue the issue of not using the EU directive on transparent and predictable working. It seems that the promises given that there would be no changes, and that the UK would adopt any changes from the European Union and embrace all the employment legislation and workers’ rights protections, are not coming to fruition. This change in enforcing the lower earnings limit, not the EU directive, seems to indicate that the Government want to do things differently.
I say to Government Members that not everything from the European Union is bad. Its workers’ rights and employment protections are of a good standard. Indeed, the Government have even committed that when the European Union makes changes around, for example, insecure work, they will be open to considering and perhaps adopting them I hope that the Minister will confirm that is the case.
The Minister has mentioned that there will be other statutory instruments. They really have to deal with the insecurity of people who do not know how many hours they are going to work week to week. This is a nonsensical position; it puts a lot of pressure on these people financially because of childcare and transport costs. Does the Minister agree with me and the shadow Minister about the Taylor review recommendation regarding those who are on zero-hours contract for 12 months or more and their right to request a contract that better reflects the hours they work? It has been mentioned that that was a Government commitment; it was in the “Good Work Plan” in 2018, but has not been implemented.
I will quickly make just two more points. First, notice periods have to be dealt with. This is a huge issue for those who are on zero-hours contracts. We cannot have three people getting a text message saying, “The first one here will get the shift.” That is an absolutely scandalous practice, but it is still going on in far too many workplaces. Finally, will the Minister tell me when we are going to see this much-vaunted employment Bill? It was committed to in the Conservative manifestos of 2015, 2017 and 2019.
Dean Russell
I genuinely thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. When I was at university, I worked on what we would now call a zero-hours contract, doing as-and-when work. As such, I totally understand the challenges that people face with this, which is one the reasons for these reforms. People on the lowest incomes being told that they cannot work elsewhere is just wrong, and these regulations go towards rectifying that. I appreciate that there is always a desire to go further and faster, and I hear that, but hopefully we are all in agreement that we are heading in the right direction with these regulations.
I will come to employment Bill later. I brought in a private Member’s Bill that would have been part of that employment Bill—the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill—and I am very proud of that. I recently became the Minister with responsibility for this area. There are great things happening, but I will address those later in my speech.
I hope I can cover most of the responses to the excellent questions during the debate. If I do not, I will absolutely write back. I know the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is a regular writer of parliamentary questions. I always enjoy reading and responding to them, so I thank him very much.
The points that have been raised demonstrate the need for the regulations and the broad support for introducing them. The Government are intent on driving higher employment, wages and economic growth. The implementation of these regulations will support this aim by building more flexibility into the labour market and putting powers into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits them and their personal circumstances. Short-hours contracts can provide a necessary level of flexibility for individuals, allowing them to work around other commitments such as study or childcare. The flexibility provided by short-hours contracts, including as zero-hours contracts, is something we know that the majority of these workers enjoy and, therefore, this should be protected.
This proposal will allow individuals to work multiple short-hours contracts, allowing them to boost their income while maintaining the level of flexibility required for their personal circumstances. A dynamic and flexible labour market will help us retain and attract talent, while fostering a diverse and inclusive workforce. The talent pool of job applicants will widen, as those who have been prevented from applying for jobs by another employer will help businesses to fill vacancies in key sectors and provide employment opportunities in marginalised areas. This more flexible market encourages an upskilling of workers and allows a match to be made between individuals and work which best uses their skills, which will drive higher employment, wages and economic growth. The culmination of these factors will contribute to the commitment we are making to ensure that the UK is the best place in the world to work.
There can be good reasons for employers using exclusivity clauses to protect the interests of their business. Although I am aware of the concerns that have been raised, some employers use exclusivity clauses to ensure that high-level company information remains confidential. However, we believe that employers should equally respect the right of a worker to earn a living, particularly where guaranteed earnings are low.
Returning to the points made in the debate, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston voiced about the lack of Government action to deliver on the manifesto commitment to create a right to request a more predictable contract. The Government remain committed to doing this. The right will allow a qualifying worker to make an application to change their existing working pattern if it lacks predictability in the hours that they are required to work, the times that they are required to work, and the duration of the contract. I will gladly follow up with more detail, if that would be helpful.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned preventing one-sided flexibility and increasing business power over employees. We totally recognise that one-sided flexibility is a problem and that a minority of employers may misuse flexible working arrangements. We held a consultation inviting views on tackling challenges related to non-guaranteed hours; we are currently analysing the results and will respond in due course. Again, I am happy to follow up once that is available.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the continued absence of an employment Bill. As I said earlier, I have been forging my own way with my private Member’s Bill on tips, and there are many other relevant PMBs. I am afraid this is a very similar answer to the one I gave before, but hopefully he does not mind a repeat—sometimes they are good on TV. The Queen’s Speech set out a packed and ambitious legislative programme, which includes a comprehensive set of Bills that enable us to deliver on priorities such as growing the economy, which will in turn help to address living costs and get people into good jobs.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. I was on the Bill Committee for his tips Bill, which is a good measure. His predecessor gave a commitment that an employment Bill would be in the last Queen’s Speech, but it was not. Given the strong and stable Government who we have at the moment, can the Minister tell me in which King’s Speech we will see an employment Bill?
Dean Russell
I appreciate the intervention and the diligence with which the hon. Gentleman follows Government process and Conservative manifestos. Of course, there is still a desire to introduce an employment Bill, but a lot of the activity that would have been in such a Bill is coming forward. A neonatal private Member’s Bill is currently in play, and there is some really great work going on in that space. I hear him and will feed back the comments, but we are forging ahead in a positive way. I too was disappointed that the Queen’s Speech did not include an employment Bill, but we remain committed to delivering our as many of our commitments on employment as parliamentary time allows. As I say, numerous private Members’ Bills on employment rights have been introduced as a result of PMB ballots in the Commons. Wherever possible, there is a keenness to support those that are aligned with the goals of the Government..
The hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston both asked why the draft regulations are not being extended further, and I understand their views. Ultimately, the intention is to ensure that low-paid workers who are not able to secure the number of hours they would like from their current employer are able to seek additional work elsewhere. The lower earnings limit is set each tax year by the Government and is an established marker of a low-paid worker. Using the lower earnings limit will also ensure that the threshold remains relevant. Setting the threshold at the level of the lower earnings limit balances the needs of various businesses while protecting the most vulnerable workers and enabling them to boost their income where required.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for providing some explanation. Can he say a bit more about why the needs of those businesses mean that the level is set at where it is now?
Dean Russell
Obviously they are wide-ranging, but a good example would be that if someone is working in an company where the information that they are working on is sensitive and there is a major competitor, that would be a challenge for exclusivity. A company would not want that worker to go and work for a competitor.
Justin Madders
I suggest that the general confidentiality duty in contracts of employment ought to cover those sorts of situations. I urge the Minister to look again at that as a reason not to extend the scope.
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I suppose that in some instances it would be a bit like somebody working in the Conservative party and also in the Labour party. We can see the slight conflict there.
Dean Russell
Well, the news is that the SNP and Labour are going to form a coalition, so perhaps I am wrong to use that example.
Dean Russell
What I would say is that the EU regulations provide for a wholesale exclusivity clause in all contracts, whereas we believe that, in some instances, exclusivity clauses are needed for businesses to protect business interests, allowing them to continue to generate economic growth. If it is helpful, I will come back to Members with some more precise examples for reference.
To move on—I am conscious of time; I know people normally like these Committees to run quickly, but this is an important statutory instrument—concerns were raised about the announcement from His Majesty’s Treasury about additional requirements for the lowest paid universal credit claimants, who would face having their benefits reduced if they did not meet them. With our changes to exclusivity clauses, we want to help people on low incomes to secure more and better paid work, to provide a valuable income boost for vulnerable and low-paid workers. That will help universal credit claimants to meet those new earning requirements and keep their benefits.
There was a question about when we will lay the subsequent legislation. We plan to lay the associated negative statutory instrument as soon as possible, following the successful passage of these regulations.
Dean Russell
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not. I think I have been quite generous and friendly to all sides.
We plan to lay that SI as soon as we can, with a view to the policy coming into force later this year. I can update Members when we have a firm date.
I hope I have covered all the questions, but if I have not, I will gladly follow up in writing. I thank everyone here today. I commend these draft regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2022 - (20 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders for the Committee, which Mr Speaker has asked me to read out. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during sittings of the Committee. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if hon. Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
New Clause 44
Mission on environmental equality
“(1) When preparing a statement of levelling-up missions under section 1, a Minister of the Crown must include a mission on environmental equality.
(2) The environmental equality mission must include the objective of ensuring equitable access to high quality natural spaces.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require the Government to include a mission on environmental equality, incorporating equitable access to nature in particular, within the levelling up programme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 46—Nature restoration duty—
“(1) It is the duty of relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for the purposes of restoring and protecting the natural environment in local areas.
(2) By 2030 and thereafter, the network must include at least 30% of land in England that is protected, monitored and managed as a "protected site" or other effective area-based conservation measures for the protection and restoration of biodiversity.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), ‘protected site’ means a site that satisfies the following conditions—
(a) habitats, species and other significant features of the natural environment with biodiversity value within the site are strictly protected from direct and indirect harm;
(b) management and monitoring provisions are made to ensure that habitats, species and other significant features of the natural environment with biodiversity value within the site are restored to and maintained at favourable condition and are subject to continuing improvement; and
(c) provision is made to ensure that conditions (a) and (b) are met in perpetuity.
(4) In carrying out duties under this section, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) any areas of special interest for biodiversity in England as defined in section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
(b) all irreplaceable habitats; and
(c) areas identified in Local Nature Recovery Strategies that are protected in the planning system and managed for the recovery of the natural environment
have been identified and designated as a protected site.”
This new clause would require relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature to protect at least 30% of the land in England for nature by 2030. The clause defines the level of protection sites require to qualify for inclusion in the new network and requires key sites for nature to be included within it.
Rachael Maskell
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, on the final day of our proceedings on this incredible Bill. I want to place on record my thanks to all the Clerks for the support they have given the Committee, particularly when writing our amendments.
There are omissions in the levelling-up agenda. Future generations, let alone the current one, will not forgive a levelling-up plan that fails to focus on the natural environment and to ensure that people have equal access to our greatest assets. Equitable access to the environment needs to be in the Bill through a specified mission. Some 70% of UK adults have said that being close to nature improves their mood, saving the NHS at least £100 million a year, with a nature-rich space leading to healthier and happier people. One in three people in economically deprived areas does not have access to green spaces within 15 minutes of where they live. These measures are therefore vital for our mental and physical health. It is often those who live in urban, deprived communities with the least connection to our natural environment who suffer the most. Making tacking that issue a central mission of the levelling-up agenda would prove that this Government understand that enrichment is for everyone and would bring Government focus to it.
I have constituents who have never been to the country, children who have never run along a beach and adults who have never climbed a mountain, never got lost in a forest and never been to a place where they can breathe the cleanest air. Without nature, our wellbeing is impaired, productivity falls and poverty rises—that is inequality, not levelling up. Access to the natural environment must therefore be a central mission if levelling up is to have any purpose at all.
New clause 46 would place a duty on Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature, to protect at least 30% of the land in England for nature by 2030, and that land must be monitored and managed for conservation and restoration. If, like me, you miss hedgehogs—perhaps they have no connected corridors—or birds, bees and butterflies, which we have failed to protect from pesticides and whose habitats we have failed to save, you will understand why this new clause is important. If you live somewhere like York and see more and more severe flooding because grouse moor shooting practices have damaged the upper catchment, you will want to see that practice stopped and the land restored. Our incredible natural environment was created to be in perfect balance, but our interference has caused so much harm.
We have a serious duty to monitor the natural environment, end the harm and restore nature before it is too late. Homing in on key sites must be our priority. We have heard so much this year about the climate emergency, and COP15 is highlighting the ruinous state of our natural environment. Just over the weekend, I was reading a WWF report that states that, on average, 69% of populations of mammals, birds and fish have vanished since 1970. We have to stop and save. My new clause would be the first step in that and would show that the Government were serious, not grandstanding, on such a serious issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I am again delighted to find some common ground so early in the Committee sitting; I think we were three minutes in when the hon. Member for York Central mentioned her love for hedgehogs—something that I definitely share. I thank her for these proposals, which aim to address the importance of the environment within the levelling-up framework.
New clause 44 concerns the inclusion of a specific mission on environmental equality. While I fully appreciate the sentiment behind it, the missions as depicted in the levelling-up White Paper are the product of extensive analysis and engagement already. They are supported by a clear range of metrics, which will be used to measure them at the appropriate levels of geography. They take into account the wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. They cover a wide range of policy issues that are all clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities.
The Government have already explicitly acknowledged the importance of natural capital in the White Paper. As an asset, it underpins sustainable GDP growth, supports productivity over the medium term and provides resilience to future shocks. Natural capital has been estimated to be worth £1.2 trillion in the UK alone. It also has a place under the 25-year environment plan, which sets out the Government’s plans to help the natural world regain and retain good health. It pursues cleaner air and water in our cities and rural landscapes, protection for threatened species and provision of richer wildlife habitats. Importantly, the Environment Act 2021 already contains provision for the setting of long-term environmental targets for England, which is also referenced in the levelling-up White Paper, so the Government’s commitment to the environment is incredibly clear.
The Bill is designed to establish the framework for the missions, rather than the individual missions themselves. The framework provides an opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions and further environmental protections against a range of existing Government policy.
New clause 46 aims to establish a duty on relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature. The Government have already committed to protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030 and to developing the most appropriate approach to increasing and enhancing protected land as we do so. Protected sites are our best existing areas for nature, providing places within which species can thrive, recover and disperse. The nature recovery Green Paper sought views on how the protected site system in England could be improved to better deliver our domestic and international biodiversity objectives, including our commitment to protect 30% of land by 2030 and wider species recovery. We are considering responses to the Green Paper and will be publishing our response in due course. This is the means through which the Government will implement and identify sites for the 30 by 30 commitment, but I hope the Government will be given the opportunity to respond on the Green Paper first. On that basis, I hope I have provided enough reassurance for the hon. Member for York Central not to press her new clauses.
Rachael Maskell
I have to disagree with the Minister that such priority is being given to the natural environment. This has to be a central mission, not least because of the recognition that she has given to the value of natural capital. While the 25-year environment plan sets out an ambition, it is weak on targets and monitoring. We need to go far further, which is what this proposal will do if it is a central mission in levelling up.
On new clause 46, I note that the Government are consulting on the issue, and I am interested in the responses. I will not push these new clauses today, save to say that the natural environment does not have high enough priority in this legislation, but it is essential for our future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
General duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being
“(1) For the purposes of this section ‘the general health and well-being objective’ is the reduction of health inequalities and the improvement of well-being in England through the exercise of functions in relation to England.
(2) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must prepare and publish a plan to be known as a health inequalities and well-being improvement plan.
(3) A relevant planning authority must have regard to the general health and wellbeing objective and that plan when preparing relevant plans, policies and strategies.
(4) A relevant planning authority when making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the general health and well-being objective.
(5) In complying with this section a relevant planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of—
(a) delivering mixed-use walkable neighbourhoods which accord with the 20 minute neighbourhood principle; and
(b) creating opportunities to enable everyday physical activity, through improving existing and creating new walking, cycling and wheeling routes and networks and natural spaces.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a), neighbourhoods which accord with the 20 minute neighbourhood principle are places where people can meet most of their daily needs including food shops, schools, health services and natural space within a 20 minute return walk of their home.
(7) Where the relevant authority is a local authority, in complying with this section, the authority must—
(a) include specific objectives for access to natural spaces and ensure that those objectives are met;
(b) ensure that the objectives established under subsection (a) set out standards for high quality accessible natural green and blue spaces, using Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards as a baseline, and going beyond these standards where possible; and (c) implement and monitor the delivery of those objectives.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are a sick nation physically. Our health outcomes are regressing and we are sinking into a mental health quagmire. Levelling up has to address this agenda, or else it has no purpose. The new clause recognises the inequality and demands change. It should be welcome and should integrated into the Bill, not least with the health disparities White Paper scrapped. If we have poor planning, residential or economic, people’s health is impacted. If we have poor transport planning, pollution reduces their life expectancy. If someone has a cold, damp house or faces housing insecurity, they will have poor educational outcomes and a poor job, poor pay and poor prospects, and they will get trapped in a cycle. Levelling up should break them free of that.
In his 2010 “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” review, Professor Sir Michael Marmot understood this. It is his life’s work to consider how planning, transport, environment and housing must come together to address wider health determinants. The new clause seeks to heed his work and to act. Planning has the most significant role to play, yet it does not have statutory engagement with this agenda. We urgently need to address inequality and shape sustainable, thriving and healthy places for physical activity and mental wellbeing—natural places for walking, cycling and wheeling that have clean air and that are accessible. Although there is an existing legal duty on local authorities and the Secretary of State to improve public health in England, there are no corresponding legal duties to reduce health inequalities and improve wellbeing in local authorities, but they are the delivery vehicle of this agenda.
A health inequalities and wellbeing improvement plan must integrate health, planning, transport, environment and housing to address social determinants. Let us make one. Delivering 20-minute neighbourhoods would not only change the way we live our lives, but build community for all, creating, as a planning purpose, opportunities for active travel and natural space, enhancing wellbeing and economic output, and levelling up. Building in natural green and blue spaces is therefore vital to the planning and levelling-up agendas.
We have talked for years—decades—but talking does not make anything happen. We need action, infrastructure, obligations and a further levelling-up mission. Let us legislate and support the new clause.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance today, Mr Hollobone. On this last day of the Committee, I want to put on record my thanks to the Clerk here and those who are not present for their work and support throughout the Committee. I also thank colleagues on both sides. Although I have been disappointed that the Government have not accepted amendments from the Opposition or from their own Back Benchers, I have nevertheless appreciated the courtesy with which that has been done. I have enjoyed this time on the Committee with all Members present—I genuinely mean that.
I have a few words to say on the new clause. Health inequalities are hugely significant for levelling up, and I want to pick just two issues that affect rural communities—not just mine, but others too. I will start with GPs. In my constituency alone there has been a 17% drop in the number of GPs in the past five and a half years—that is more than one in six GPs gone—and the average GP there serves 403 more patients than they did in 2016. Any Government criticism or implied criticism of GPs not seeing people quickly enough needs to be seen in that context. Let us support our GPs with the resources they need, rather than lambasting them.
It is worth pointing out that that period coincides with the time since the Government got rid of the minimum practice income guarantee, and I am going to argue that those things are connected. The minimum practice income guarantee was money that supported small, often rural, surgeries to ensure they were sustainable. Its removal has led to the closure of a number of surgeries, including the current threat to the Ambleside and Hawkshead surgeries in my constituency. A new small surgeries strategic rural fund could support those surgeries, make sure we do not lose more and bring some back.
The second issue is about cancer. In the north of Cumbria, 59% of people with a cancer diagnosis are not seen within two months of their diagnosis—they are not being treated for the first time for more than 62 days after diagnosis. In the south of Cumbria, the figure is 41%. Either way, that is outrageous. People are dying unnecessarily.
There are a whole range of reasons for that. One is the lack of easy access to radiotherapy. According to the Government’s national radiotherapy advisory group, any patient who has to travel more than 45 minutes one way for radiotherapy treatment is in receipt of “bad practice”. That information was published a few years ago now, but it still absolutely stands, clinically and in every other way. There is not a single person living in my constituency who can get to treatment within 45 minutes—not one. Mobile or satellite units at places such as Kendal and Penrith are absolutely essential. If we are going to tackle levelling up and health inequalities between rural areas and others, we need to ensure that small rural surgeries are properly funded and that there are satellite radiotherapy units.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for raising this incredibly important issue. All hon. Members will agree that it is vital that we safeguard the health and wellbeing of our nation. The Health Secretary talked about the ABCD of national priorities—ambulances, backlogs, care, and doctors and dentistry—and giving her time to tackle them is incredibly important. That is why the Government have introduced a new approach to co-ordinating local efforts to improve health outcomes, and why we have already set clear expectations through planning policy.
Rachael Maskell
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for raising the situation in Cumbria, including the shocking statistics about what is happening around cancer care in that area, of which he is an incredible champion.
My challenge to the Minister is this. The Government have lots of initiatives, but no co-ordination, focus and drive to deliver, which is why creating a duty to address health inequalities is important. ICSs are distracted by the crumbling of the NHS and have so many priorities placed on them. The planning expectations are just not being met and delivered, as there are other pressures and priorities that come through the planning system.
Public health is an important issue for all of us, but it does not fall within the ABCD of the Secretary of State’s priorities for the health services. This is another missed opportunity to create a mechanism to measure and manage health inequalities and disparities through the planning system. It absolutely belongs within levelling-up legislation; it is a shame that the Minister will not support that.
I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister will take on board those points and see how they can be further integrated into the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 47
Churches and church land to be registered as assets of community value
“(1) The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2421/2012) are amended as follows.
(2) After regulation 2 (list of assets of community value), insert—
‘2A Parish churches and associated glebe land are land of community value and must be listed.’”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require parish churches and associated glebe land to be listed as assets of community value, meaning communities would have the right to bid on them before any sale.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 47 raises quite a niche issue, but none the less an important one. The post office is long gone; the village shop has closed; the pub is now holiday lets. Some may not realise that the Church of England is currently looking to dispose of 356 churches. They were paid for and built by parishes and are now under threat. They are the very last community space, sucked out by the secularisation of society. The need for financial prudence over community value and a spiritual space within a community has never been more apparent. Having met with the Save the Parish campaign, I believe that these spaces are too important to just go to the market. Instead, parish churches and associated glebe land should be designated as land of community value.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I am curious as to why the hon. Lady is defining this as narrowly as parish churches. For example, a church in my constituency was never a parish church—it was attached to a mental health facility that has long closed—but it is just as architecturally beautiful and as much a piece of heritage as the nearby parish churches. There are many similar chapels out there; in many cases they were attached to hospitals or military facilities. They also add community value and need saving. Will the hon. Lady expand her scope to include those premises?
Rachael Maskell
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham for raising that issue. He is absolutely right; we need to look at the broadest possible scope. This particular issue has been raised within the Church of England, but he is right—there are many places of worship that should be marked as community assets.
When those assets are disposed of, communities should have a right to access them and bid for them, as we have discussed during previous stages of the Bill, rather than them going straight to market sale. That leaves communities devoid of any assets whatsoever. It is so important for communities to have the option to maintain an asset and use it for multiple purposes, including as a place of worship or as a place to serve the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for putting forward the new clause. She powerfully made her point about the importance of church properties and church land at the centre of our communities. We have all recently seen buildings that have brought communities together for decades and centuries, very sadly, no longer able to continue in the way that they have previously, and they may be released for other purposes. I accept that; we all regret it and many people in the communities regret it. I have an example in my constituency: there was a long-standing campaign for St Andrew’s Parish Church in Barrow Hill, which concluded only a few months ago. It was an early version of a church built along the lines of the arts and crafts movement. It has significance, and yet it looks as though it will leave ecclesiastical aegis.
I completely understand the hon. Member’s sentiment and she has made a cogent case for the new clause, but the challenge—and why I will ask her to withdraw it—is that the assets of community value scheme allows local communities to make applications to retain community assets where they think it is reasonable and proportionate. On balance, while I accept her point, it would be better to allow local communities to continue to make those decisions. When the challenges that she highlighted arise, I hope that communities try to ensure that churches are protected as much as possible.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
This is an issue dear to my heart.
It is a very good new clause. I cycle every year in Suffolk churches’ “Ride and Stride” to raise money to protect their incredibly expensive infrastructure. We have wool churches in South Suffolk, which are very beautiful, but whether beautiful or not, they are very important to their communities.
In 2015—I think—we had the church roof fund, which was used where there was very serious degradation. We then had a spate of lead theft, which further undermined churches. We may be rejecting new clause 47, but are the Government considering specific measures, and perhaps working with the Church of England, to see what more we can do?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that, historically, we have attempted to address such issues, both through the continuation of the asset of community value process, which allows local communities to try to intervene should they feel that appropriate, and the community ownership fund, which is £150 million of taxpayer subsidy that supports communities to save at-risk assets.
Although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for York Central, my personal preference, and that of the Government, is that local communities reserve the right to request assets of community value and to go through that process. Automatically designating churches as assets of community value may not be appropriate in all circumstances. I ask that the hon. Lady kindly withdraw the motion.
Rachael Maskell
I want to pick up on a couple of points. I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk for raising his concerns. Considerable public money is invested in many such historic buildings before they end up at market, so we need to consider that opportunity. However, churches are not just ordinary buildings; they are very special buildings in our communities. We must consider the broader value that such places bring to our communities. Although I will not press the motion to a Division, I hope that the Minister will regard this as a new issue on his desk and that, when we have debates on later stages of the Bill, he will look further at how we can protect these vital community assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 48
Requirement to hold a referendum for large and strategic sites
“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum in either of the following cases—
(a) the planning application is for a site of two hectares or over, or
(b) the planning application is for a site of one hundred housing units or over.
(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.
(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—
(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and
(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require planning applications for large and strategic sites to be subject to approval by residents in a referendum.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 49—Requirement to hold a referendum where planning permission has been granted—
“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum in either of the following cases—
(a) where outline planning permission has been granted, all applications for sites with over fifty housing units that have been in place for five years or more without the approved development being completed, or
(b) where full planning permission has been granted, all applications for sites with over fifty housing units that have been in place for three years or more without the approved development being completed.
(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.
(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—
(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and
(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”
This new clause would require that applications which have already been granted are subject to approval by referendum after a certain period of time for large sites.
New clause 50—Requirement to hold a referendum: affordable housing targets—
“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum if—
(a) the planning application is for a site of fifty housing units or more, or
(b) the planning application is for a site identified for housing in an adopted or draft Local Plan
and the application fails to meet the local planning authority’s quota for the delivery of affordable housing.
(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.
(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—
(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and
(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”
This new clause would subject planning applications for less affordable housing to approval by residents in a referendum.
Rachael Maskell
Communities are very much removed from the planning system, as I have mentioned multiples times to the Committee. However, what comes before a local planning authority is the future of a community’s homes, jobs, streets and town centres. On larger sites, that can have even more significance. The new clause provides that, on sites of more than 2 hectares or of over 100 housing units, the public would be given a meaningful say over developments.
York Central, which will become Airbnb central before long, is a development of 2,500 units on a 45 hectare site. The units are too costly for local people, and the wrong kind of housing for my community, so they will simply be assets for investors. No one in York wants the development to go ahead as planned, but no one has had a say. In fact, the community has been ignored and snubbed, while all those who will gain capital receipts, and our inept council, nod it through. People need a say, and how better than through a public vote? They want the site to be developed, but with homes and jobs for them. Where developers have not advanced their planning, they too should be given an opportunity to have a say over those sites. People in communities should be at the heart of planning; they are instead ignored.
I have one objective: for people to be given back their communities. Communities should have homes, jobs and natural assets that benefit them, and be empowered and valued. Instead, landowners—public and private—developers, and poor planning ride roughshod over them. They extract what they can for their gain, rather than for investment for others. That has to stop, and new clause 48 seeks to stop it. New clause 50 would change the balance of housing developed, so that, rather than market profiteering, the community determines its own gain. Through a public vote, communities would be able to deliver affordable housing.
I believe that we are all on one side in wanting that outcome; it is just that Labour plans to do something about it. My earlier new clauses, through which I sought a process of deliberative democracy, would of course be more powerful, as the right solutions would be achieved from the very start.
Lee Rowley
This is an interesting set of new clauses, on which I could detain the Committee for many hours, although I wonder whether it would be keen on that. In the interest of brevity, I will limit my comments, because the clauses go to a philosophical question about where and how decisions should be made, and about the rights of individuals to at least propose activities on their own property with their own capital.
A single principle that has been part of the planning system for many decades is that people have the right to make applications within an existing and approved framework or, if that existing and approved framework is not in place, within the broader national planning policy framework, and for them to be heard. Although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for York Central, that important principle should be upheld.
There is a broader question about whether we should seek to disintermediate the planning system more generally in terms of public involvement, but that is probably one for another forum. I would be happy to debate that question with the hon. Lady, as it raises a number of broader and more interesting issues. As an expert in this area, she will know that it is important to note that the significant number of interventions currently in the planning system allow people to have their say.
I do not necessarily think that the system is broken, but a lot of people feel that their voices are not heard at the right time or in a substantive way, and I completely appreciate their frustration, even if I am not sure about the kind of structural reforms that the hon. Lady proposes. Fundamentally, if local councillors do not consistently do the right thing on planning—if they fail to bring forward local plans, fail to be clear about what should or should not go into plans and where things should or should not go, and fail to create a framework because there has been no local planning, or the framework is wrong—residents should vote them out and replace them with councillors who will. That is what happened in North East Derbyshire in 2019, and I encourage all local residents who feel that their councillors are not consistently doing the right thing on planning over many years to look at whether they have the right leadership in place.
Although the hon. Lady made a strong point—with which I agree—about the importance of democracy in the planning system, I hope that she will not press the new clauses, as I do not think they are necessarily the way to go at this time.
Rachael Maskell
I am sure the residents of York will heed the Minister’s advice in May and ensure that they have a council that engages with them and listens to their needs. While we wait for that event, I think it is clear that, across the planning system, communities may have a voice but they do not have the power to influence decisions. We need to ensure greater democratisation of our planning system, which should be about people and communities, and their homes, futures and jobs. At the moment, the planning system is insufficient in helping people to level up, which is what the Bill is all about.
The Minister has heard my arguments, and I am sure that we will debate this further, but I trust that, in the interim between this stage and Report, he will give further consideration to how that balance can be tipped more towards communities, ensuring that they have a proper say, so that that the Bill does not become another developers’ charter under which developers hold all the cards and all the power. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Disposal of land held by public bodies
“(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022.’
(3) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.
(4) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsection (5).
(5) After section 211 (acquisition, use and maintenance of property) insert—
‘211A Disposal of land held by NHS bodies
Any power granted by this Act to an NHS body to dispose of land is exercisable in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 as if the NHS body were a local authority.’
(6) Subject to subsection (8), a disposal of land is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (7).
(7) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—
(a) after paragraph 1 insert—
‘(1A) This consent also applies to any NHS body in England as if it were a local authority in accordance with section 211A of the National Health Service Act 2006;’;
(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;
(c) for paragraph 3(1)(vii) substitute—
‘(viii) a Police and Crime Commissioner established under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;’;
(d) for paragraph 3(1)(ix) substitute—
‘(ix) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime;’;
(e) for paragraph 3(1)(x) substitute—
‘(x) the London Fire Commissioner;’;
(f) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—
‘(xiii) a combined authority;
(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;
(xv) the Greater London Authority;
(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this sub-paragraph.’.”
(8) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would bring an amended and updated version of the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 into primary legislation, extends its application to NHS bodies and clarifies that the Consent applies to Police and Crime Commissioners, MOPAC and the London Fire Commissioner.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 51 addresses an outdated element and we hope that the Government will take it on board. Land and property sold by local authorities, the NHS, the fire brigade and police forces should, where possible, be prioritised for public services and social and affordable housing, which benefit the local communities that those buildings previously served. As things stand, however, the law is ambiguous and outdated when it comes to the sale of publicly owned assets below what is known as “best value”, which is defined as the market value—the highest price achievable on the open market.
This situation has been illuminated by the case of Teddington police station, a publicly owned asset in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), where local residents have thrown their support behind a bid to turn what is now a disused building into affordable housing and new premises for a GP’s surgery, so that the building can keep serving the local community.
The Mayor of London has consistently argued that he has a statutory duty to achieve best value and is minded to favour the highest bidder. That is likely to be a property developer with deep pockets looking to turn the former Teddington police station into luxury flats. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is currently seeking legal advice, for which we are grateful, on whether they can legally sell the site for less than its maximum market value where it achieves social value, following a campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.
Doubt has arisen, because the original law allowing the sale of public sector assets below market value is obsolete. It includes public authorities that have long since ceased to exist, but not their successors—their current equivalents. It allows a difference of price of £2 million, a sum that has not increased with inflation over the past two decades, or almost two decades. It is long overdue an update and an upgrade.
So, the new clause would be that much-needed update, ensuring that local authorities and other public bodies can once again place the good of local communities at the heart of the process when selling off assets. The new clause seeks to do four things. First, it would include new local authorities created since 2003, such as police and crime commissioners and indeed the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and it makes it clear that any future iterations of those authorities would also be covered.
Secondly, the new clause would expand the list of public authorities to include the NHS, combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. Thirdly, it would increase the maximum difference in value that a public authority can accept for a bid that benefits the local community, raising it from £2 million to £3 million, to account for inflation since 2003. Finally, it would introduce a percentage value difference in addition to the cash value, to level up across the board and take variations of land prices across England and Wales into account.
This seems a wise and timely new clause, which we hope the Government will accept, and I commend it to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell
I, too, want to support the new clause and briefly draw attention to the way that we need to ensure that public land is used for public good. Whether it has been NHS Property Services, which has been selling off land to private developers, or Network Rail, which has been using its land to maximise capital receipts, or the Ministry of Defence selling off much of its estate, which we know has not gone well for the Government, we need to ensure that this type of land is used to build the homes that people need now and in the future. I can cite many examples of places in York where it feels that the city is, bit by bit, being sold off—not for the public benefit, but for the benefit of developers. That is why I will support this new clause today.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for York Central for expressing their views on this new clause.
The legislative framework governing the disposal of surplus land is, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, a long-standing one and it is designed to protect taxpayers’ money. The starting point is that land should generally be disposed of at the best price that is reasonably obtainable. However, as he also indicated, there are on occasions the opportunity to dispose of land for less than its maximum value where that creates wider public benefits, such as facilitating community projects. Therefore, it is possible, with the Secretary of State’s consent, for local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration in some circumstances.
As the hon. Gentleman also indicated, a general consent is in place for disposals where there would be a loss of value of up to £2 million, and in those cases it is at the discretion of local authorities, and above this threshold—as he also indicated, because he is seeking to change it—disposals require a specific application to the Secretary of State for consent. The legislative framework is designed for local authorities and other locally accountable bodies. It already includes the fire commissioner, and other bodies are accountable in different ways to different regimes.
So, while I completely appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expressed, and I have read the correspondence from the hon. Member for Twickenham—although I cannot comment on individual cases, I know that she is making a very clear case regarding a particular instance within her Twickenham constituency—I ask him whether he would be prepared to withdraw the new clause. I know that it seeks to offer solutions.
As a new Minister, I would be interested to understand in more detail from the hon. Member for Twickenham the specific problems that she sees, and while I cannot give her any guarantees, if she wants to write to me with that detail I will happily read it and go through it in more detail. However, at this time I ask him whether he would consider withdrawing the new clause.
Tim Farron
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for York Central. This is a huge issue for all of us and there is much public land, particularly in a community such as mine, with multiple local authorities and, indeed, predecessor local authorities, national parks and all the other parts of the public sector that are present. Sometimes, that land becomes available and there are opportunities for us to make good public use of those other properties in ways that get far more lasting value to the community than a slightly inflated cash value upfront that could then be spent filling a black hole, no doubt, for next year’s budget.
I will not press this to a vote, as the Minister asks, but I encourage him to engage with my hon. Friend. If I could push him, I am sure she would be very grateful to have a sit down with him to talk through the issue to see whether he could provide additional guidance. All we are really asking for here is that the Government update the list of what counts as a public body and accept that there has been some inflation since 2003. They are not big asks, and I ask that the Government take those things into account. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 56
Annual pubs reports
“(1) Each tier 2 local authority in England must produce an Annual Pubs Report.
(2) A report under this section must consider the latest trends in pubs and on-licensed establishments across the authority.
(3) The Secretary of State may by guidance suggest the contents of such reports.
(4) Central government must provide funding to local authorities to cover the costs of this new responsibility.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One area of consensus that we have definitely been able to build over the last one day short of four months of the Bill—not that I am counting—is a belief that pubs are a core part of our communities and a general sadness about the trend of loss of those community assets in all sorts of communities, whether rural, urban or suburban. That is not least because they are attractive for a change of use—it being easier for a shop to set up and get an alcohol licence on the site of a former pub. That has happened up and down the country and we all have examples of that. It seems there is a never-ending loss of traditional pubs and we know that loss is felt deeply by our constituents. As well as affecting the social wellbeing and social interest of affected communities, studies have also shown that pubs are important in bringing people together, tackling loneliness and reducing social isolation. That, I would argue, is more important than ever.
We should take great comfort from the fact that up and down the country micropubs are fighting back, often in places that we would not necessarily have thought of. That may be part of the reimagining of retail premises in the future, and it is a good thing. However, we know that the experience of the environment in which those micropubs may seek to set up or communities may seek to stop the closure of an existing pub is not consistent, and some local authorities are much better at creating an economic, administrative and social environment where pubs are valued as a community amenity.
We are posed with a challenge of what we can do. This is a matter for local leadership, but what do we do to encourage all local authorities to adopt good practice and play an active role? That is what I have attempted to do with new clause 56, by requiring the production of an annual pubs report, which would set out how a council’s policies and strategies deliver a good environment for local pubs to operate in. In that regard, a benchmark would be set against which the success and failings of those policies could be measured and assessed.
The report could include an obligation to publish information on licensing, planning, local plans and enforcement, heritage and tourism, community engagement and assets of community values, and much more, all in a single overarching policy. I hope it would encourage local authorities to look at their pubs environment in a more holistic way and take the chance to identify pub deserts and reflect on licensing and planning trends and practices. The report would also inform the citizen and Government at a national level by allowing comparisons and aggregate understanding. I hope that is of interest to the Government. It may be that primary legislation is not the mechanism for this, but I am interested in the Minister’s views about what we might be able to do.
Dehenna Davison
The shadow Minister is absolutely right: this is an area where we have found a lot of common ground in the few days that I have been serving on Committee. Long may that common ground continue. We can all recognise the incredible value of our hospitality businesses. I am sure that for many of us in this room, myself included, it is where we got our first experience of the job market in our first roles that gave us some of the skills that we needed to move through our careers. For many people, as the shadow Minister rightly outlined, it is not just a pub or a restaurant; it is somewhere we go to have a bit of company, to have a chat, to celebrate or commiserate, so it is right that we do all we can to get hospitality businesses through what has been a really difficult few years. That is why we have recently taken steps through the energy bill relief scheme to try to provide support for hospitality businesses and recognise the unique challenges that they face. That will be a vital tool to ensure they get through this difficult winter; and through kickstart we are helping businesses to recruit more staff.
On the specifics of the amendment, data on the hospitality sector is already available. The Office for National Statistics publishes a range of regional data, including on the output of the sector, the number of hospitality businesses and the number of workers they employ. I am keen not to duplicate the incredible work of trade bodies such as UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping, as well as organisations such as Statista and IBISWorld, who provide regular updates and industry statistics and reports detailing the state of the hospitality sector from its position of incredible expertise.
I am concerned that if we implemented the amendment, we would create an extra reporting requirement, putting an additional requirement on businesses at a time when they are already facing unprecedented costs and challenges. As I have already outlined, the Department has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data that we have in central Government. That could have a role to play when it comes to the hospitality business. More broadly, the amendment is unnecessary, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, although we are all on the side of hospitality businesses at this difficult time.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer. I have a slight concern that relying on the data alone might make us a little reactive in this space, but I hope the Minister will think more about the idea of having it as part of a spatial data suite. That would be a valuable thing. I note her previous commitment to meet the Campaign for Real Ale, which is very interested in this. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Review of England's public conveniences
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, appoint commissioners to consider the level of need for public conveniences in England and the extent to which current provision matches that need.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish the report of the Commissioners before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of their appointment.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 58—Public convenience plans—
“(1) Each tier 2 local authority in England must produce a Public Convenience Plan for their authority.
(2) A plan under this section must be formulated in consultation with local partners and the public.
(3) Such a plan much consider—
(a) the current level of public convenience provision,
(b) the current level of demand for such conveniences,
(c) what gaps there are in provision, and
(d) the needs of communities with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
(4) Central government must provide funding to local authorities to cover the costs of this new responsibility.”
New clause 59—Business rate relief scheme for business making toilets publicly available—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme under which if a business liable to business rates permits non-customers to use their toilets as a public convenience, the area of the premises containing the toilets is discounted from the calculation of the premises' overall rateable value.”
Alex Norris
Across England there has been a steady decline in the availability of public toilets—something that does not get a lot of airtime in this place, so this is a good opportunity to rectify that. I do not intend to press new clause 59 to a Division. I wrote the new clauses a long time ago—we have been doing this for a long time—and I did not anticipate that it would be quite so close to a Budget or whatever we call the 31 October event. I do not think the Minister will be keen to make spending commitments prior to that, and I also know that our shadow Treasury team would not be keen for me to make a commitment on its behalf. However, it is an interesting idea and one worthy of discussion.
In 2016 a BBC report highlighted that local authorities had closed one in seven public toilets between 2010 and 2013. The report identified 10 areas in England and Wales with no council-run toilets at all. By 2018, the follow-up report found that the number of areas without any public conveniences had increased to 37. That is a trend likely to accelerate with the pressures on local authorities. It has led to closures or transfers to perhaps voluntary groups or charities. The good will engendered in that is a welcome thing, but it means that accountability for that essential social infrastructure has been lost. We have to be clear about this. I do not think public toilets are a “nice to have”. Lack of adequate facilities disproportionately affects all sorts of groups, including people who work outdoors, people with ill health or disability, the elderly and the homeless. Such essential facilities can make the difference between being able to confidently leave the house or not.
In June this year, the Bathroom Manufacturers Association published results of a survey of 2,000 members of the public. They had been asked about toilet provision in their area. The results were significant: 58% of those surveyed said that there were not enough toilet facilities in their community, and 43% did not believe that there were enough for disabled people, for example. If we are to reimagine our high streets—a theme of some of our debates—encourage mobility, meet equality ambitions and level up communities, improving public toilets will be part of that.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Public toilets are also a public health measure. We have to look at them within that agenda. Changing places are also important, so that disabled people can access public toilets too.
Alex Norris
Yes, changing place toilets are hugely important. I pay tribute to Martin Jackaman, the pioneer of those places and a Nottinghamian. Where available, changing places have been life-transforming for some of the most profoundly challenged families in the country. We want more such places, and to be clear that everyone going out in their city or town centre should have access to such provision—with a hoist and all those things that make the difference. That is why the issue is important.
On my new clauses, first, new clause 57 proposes a review of public conveniences. The Government would be asked to form an independent panel to assess the level of need for public conveniences within various communities and, having determined that need, to assess the level of provision. If there is a gap—I suspect there might well be—the panel should ascertain its root causes and make recommendations about what might be done to rectify the situation. I hope that the Government will encourage the devolved Administrations to undertake similar exercises.
Secondly, as addressed in new clause 58, one of the barriers to improving provision is a bit of a gap in ownership of the problem. Therefore, my new clause suggests that there should be a new duty on tier 2 councils to produce a local public convenience plan. That is not to dictate how councils use their resources, but it seems reasonable to have a plan for provision in the area. One would hope to work with partners for public convenience provisions and accountability.
Thirdly, new clause 59 is one proposal that could close the gap more quickly. Where businesses—we should recognise that many businesses up and down the country already do this—allow their toilet facilities to be used by non-patrons, that is a wonderful thing. If they do so, that could be reflected in the business rate. I am interested in the Minister’s views. My new clause might not be ready for the legislation today. That range of things would help close the gap in provision. We cannot afford to do nothing in this area. The gaps should close, but they continue to be a limiting factor on our high streets and in our town centres. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.
Dehenna Davison
I have just taken the Committee on a virtual trip to the pub, so it only seems right that we should go to a public toilet on the way back. We know how important public toilets are for all of us, but in particular for some of the more disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled or those with young children. The shadow Minister was right to outline some of the particular challenges.
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for talking about changing places. As she will know, in the past year we have introduced a £13 million changing places fund, which has been fantastic in allowing local authorities to improve their provision. We all recognise that public conveniences are incredibly important, but they are very much a local issue. Local areas know best what provision they need—be that of public toilets or other amenities—alongside other local priorities that they hope to deliver.
New clause 57 would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences, and public convenience plans would be required under new clause 58. Such changes would risk increasing bureaucracy, while decreasing the importance of local decision making. The shadow Minister will have heard me banging on in Committee about this, but it is certainly not what the Bill is about; it is about empowering local decision making and local leaders. It would be disproportionate for the Government to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue. Many local authorities already operate local community toilet schemes to encourage cafés and other businesses to open their toilets to the public. The Government welcome that and we encourage all local authorities to consider whether such a scheme would be beneficial in their area.
I will keep my points on new clause 59 brief, because the shadow Minister said that he did not intend to press it today. However, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who does not sit on the Committee but campaigned passionately to have business rates removed from public toilets. He ran an incredibly successful campaign, and it was implemented through the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Act 2021.
On the amendment generally, our concern is that we would legislate on this, but the impact on the overall business rates bill would be incredibly minimal given the relatively small floor space. On that basis, we do not think the clause is necessary or proportionate at this stage. I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his new clause.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those answers. On the point about increasing bureaucracy, I do not think it would be a huge increase. I also think areas might benefit from a bit more bureaucracy and professional interest. I accept the points on localism, which has been a theme of many of the amendments we have moved. I think when we seek to understand and configure the state here—and we can talk for hours about devolution—it is about local leadership and circumstance, but there also has to be something about the national environment setting. I felt that the clause had passed that test.
This issue is not going to go away. I hope the Minister will keep reflecting on it as she spends longer in her brief. There are many interesting stakeholders in this space, who I know will be keen to meet with her. I suggest that they get in touch. I do think this is an important issue, and I do not think the current circumstances reflect that, nor will they get better if left alone. At some point, we will have to enter this space, but it probably is not today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 63
Minimum carbon compliance standards for new homes
“(1) The Secretary of State must make Building Regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 providing that new homes in England must meet the full requirements of the Future Homes Standard from 1 January 2023.
(2) A local authority in England may choose to require and enforce minimum carbon compliance standards for new homes in its area which exceed the Future Homes Standard from that date.” —(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would bring forward from 2025 the date for which the Government’s Future Homes Standard for carbon compliance of new homes would apply. It would also give local authorities the option of imposing higher standards locally.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The crises we are going through at the moment—the political one in this place, the cost of living crisis, and even the appalling Russian-inspired war in Ukraine—are secondary compared to the threat of climate change to our species and way of life. The buildings we live, study and work in are the single biggest contributors to greenhouse gases in this country and in others. The role of central and local government in ensuring we minimise and reduce to zero carbon emissions from our buildings and in particular from our homes, existing and new, has to be an absolute imperative.
The Government’s failure to tackle this in any meaningful way over the last few years does not only have lasting and terrifying climate consequences; it also has consequences today, as people are feeling in their pockets the cost of paying for energy bills. The Government through programmes have sought to champion our existing building stock. The green homes grant, for instance, was meant to help 600,000 homes and would on today’s prices have saved £1,800 a year, but 600,000 homes were not helped—only 43,000 were. That lack of ambition in central Government’s plans to insulate the stock that already exists is matched by a lack of ambition out there in the country when it comes to new builds.
Most local authorities, certainly ours in Cumbria, are determined to ensure that new builds are built with zero-carbon specification, yet they are not allowed to. If they seek to enforce zero-carbon homes when it comes to insultation, heat pumps, solar panels or a variety of other mechanisms that will ensure there is literally a zero carbon footprint from that property, the developers can object if they think they will incur an unreasonable expense, and the council or planning authority are powerless to do anything about it. It is incredibly frustrating.
This new clause is significant, as it will genuinely empower local authorities to do the right things, which they desperately want to. It breaks the heart of councils of all political parties when they see what they need to do and are not allowed to enforce it. The clause will allow them to do the right things, and more importantly even, it will do something to reduce energy costs and make a meaningful contribution to the battle against climate change. This is a really important clause, so I will seek to push it to a vote, because I think the Government have had plenty of time to take action of their own initiative over the last few years. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining the new clause. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept it, so we will no doubt have a Division in a moment, although I ask him to consider not pushing it to a vote. If he wishes to do so, that is of course his right.
Tim Farron
I thank the Minister for his comment, which were a clear commitment to cut no carbon. Refusing local communities the right to make decisions themselves and to have agency does not fit with anything that the Government claim about devolution and empowering local communities. I hear and respect what the Minister says, but I wish to put the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the least surprising development of this entire Committee, I will talk about electoral reform, which, on the day after the centenary of Lloyd George’s leaving office, seems like the entirely right and appropriate thing to do. If only he had done it when he had the chance.
This is a serious point about devolution. The reality is that we have been permitted over the past few years to have different electoral systems, such as the supplementary vote used for electing Mayors and police and crime commissioners. In Scotland, the single transferable vote operates successfully for local government, and Northern Ireland has its own separate arrangements. If we trust local people, and if the Bill is about devolving power to local communities, it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that the Government allow local authorities to choose from a range of reasonable options the system that they deploy—and to do nothing more than use the system that the Conservative party normally uses for electing its leader. I point out that I am moving the new clause only because the Government chose recently to remove the supplementary vote from the election of Mayors and police and crime commissioners.
Before I shut up and sit down, I wish to reflect on the fact that in the past couple of years the Government have demonstrated an interesting example of changing the electoral system without a referendum. That makes one think, does it not? If the party or parties who form the next Government have a commitment to electoral reform in their manifestos, there is no need for a referendum. It is a precedent that the Government may wish they had not set.
Dehenna Davison
If it is no surprise to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman brings up electoral reform, it will be no surprise to him that I stand to ask him kindly to withdraw his new clause, because the Government absolutely cannot accept it. We are all clear about the merits of first past the post as a robust and secure way to elect representatives. It is well understood by voters and provides for strong and clear local accountability, with a clear link between elected representatives and those who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not.
It is important that the voting system is clearly understood by electors and they have confidence in it. We have spoken a lot in Committee about local confidence in local politics. Ensuring confidence in the voting system is paramount. Having different systems for neighbouring areas risks confusion for electors. We are a very mobile population: we could work in one area and have family in another. That confusion could be a real risk and could weaken public confidence in the local electoral process.
There is also the risk of political manipulation. For example, the current controlling group on the council could seek to choose and implement a system that it believes would favour it. Although I accept that there could be various safeguards to mitigate that risk, I do not consider that it could be entirely removed.
Elections are the foundation of local democracy, which is central to our values and to our being a free society; we should protect and nurture it. I could talk about this all day, but I will not detain the Committee any further. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Tim Farron
I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I will comment on the irony of the Minister saying that parties should not support electoral systems that advantage them, and of suggesting that there is some kind of automatic stability and clarity about Governments that are elected via first past the post. It is all going swimmingly at the moment.
There is this idea that there may be confusion between different systems. As a Cumbrian, I can completely cope with the fact that the Scots, just over the border, have a totally different electoral system for local and parliamentary elections. My Conservative friends in Westmorland and Eden are perfectly capable of voting by alternative vote for their leader and by first past the post for their Member of Parliament or councillor. The arguments made by the Minister do not hold water, but I will not trouble the Committee by pushing the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 65
Review into business rates system
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review of the business rates system.
(2) The review must consider the extent to which the business rates system—
(a) is achieving its objectives,
(b) is conducive to the achievement of the levelling-up and regeneration objectives of this Act.
(3) The review must consider whether alternatives of local business taxation would be more likely to achieve the objectives in subsections (2)(a) and (b).
(4) The review must in particular consider the effects of business rates and alternative local business taxation systems on—
(a) high streets, and
(b) rural areas.
(5) The review must consider the merits of devolving more control over local business taxation to local authorities.
(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review before parliament before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the business rates system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Me again—sorry. The Government have made quite a thing recently about their investment zones, which are interesting. We talked about them earlier in Committee. One idea behind them is that they create a low-tax environment, which misses the major point that faces most of Britain and certainly the whole of the north of England: business rates are the high tax that destroys high streets, puts off entrepreneurs, snuffs out young and small businesses and damages local economies, rural and urban alike.
New clause 65 would require a review of the business rates system to ensure that business rates are reformed and, indeed, replaced. They are harmful to our economy. They directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than taxing the profit of a fixed stock of land. We should abolish the business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy, shifting the burden of taxation from tenant to landowners. That would benefit deprived communities in particular. In terms of business rates, the whole of the north is over-rated—I should be very careful: it is over-business rated. It is not over-rated; it is of course the best part of planet Earth.
Kendal, Windermere, Penrith and communities throughout Cumbria are thriving compared with many places—we are lucky to have so many independents—but the gaps that we have in our high street we have in large part because business rates are totally unfit for purpose. They are a drag on investment and snuff out entrepreneurial zeal. If the Government really wanted to create investment zones, they would create them on every high street in the country by scrapping or reforming business rates.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, about which we have all had local businesses, shop owners, shop workers and other constituents contact us. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government reported on the business rates review, which was published with the 2021 autumn Budget. We will respond to the ongoing technical consultation in due course. At the Budget we also set out a range of measures to reduce the burden of business rates on all firms, including freezing the business rates multiplier, new support for businesses that are improving and greening their properties and additional support for high street businesses. It was a package worth more than £7 billion to businesses over the next five years.
I will keep this relatively brief. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I suggest that the provision is unnecessary. Should the Government wish to undertake a further review of business rates, we would not require legislation to do so. I fear that putting that requirement into primary legislation would be unduly restrictive, create unhelpful bureaucracy and actually slow the possible rate of change.
Tim Farron
The Government do not need legislation to do most of what is in the Bill—just get on with it. Levelling up is something they can just crack on with. Business rates are a massive drag on investment in our high streets. If I heard in what the Minister said any commitment to look at that seriously, so that the obvious burden was addressed, those with the wealth to pay business-related taxes pay more, and communities in the north of England as well as those struggling in the south paid a fairer and lower rate through a new system, I would be prepared to withdraw the motion. On the condition the Government are seriously looking at that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Disability accessibility standards for railway stations
“(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that railway stations in England—
(a) provide step-free access from street to train, and
(b) meet in full and as soon as possible the disability access standards in the Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland in March 2015.
(2) Any requirements made in conjunction with that duty may not make any exemptions or concessions for small or remote stations.
(3) In undertaking the duty in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may—
(a) make an application to the Office of Rail and Road under section 16A (provision, improvement and development of railway facilities) of the Railways Act 1993;
(b) revise the code of practice under section 71B (code of practice for protection of interests of rail users who are disabled) of the Railways Act 1993;
(c) amend the contractual conditions of any licenced railway operator;
(d) instruct Network Rail to take any action the Secretary of State considers necessary in connection to the duty.
(4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on performance against the duty.” —(Tim Farron.)
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that railway stations meet disability access standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the last provision of a suite from me, and it is really important to me as a person with members of their family who have disabilities and as someone who many years ago worked for Lancaster University in a role supporting students with a range of disabilities.
At the time that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force, one of the glaring errors was that many older buildings were allowed to continue to be thoroughly inaccessible. I am particularly concerned about railway stations, of which there are many in my community. We are blessed with the Settle to Carlisle line; the Lakes line; the Furness line; and, of course, the main line through Oxenholme to Penrith and beyond. I am deeply concerned that there are stations throughout our country, but particularly in my community, that are not just slightly inaccessible but totally inaccessible.
In particular, I am concerned about Staveley station, which is on the Lakes line from Oxenholme to Windermere. Staveley is the first village in the Lake district. It is a beautiful and vibrant place, with a young community. It is a community that, often, lives there but works elsewhere. There are 41 steps up to Staveley station. There is zero accessibility, not just for people with a disability but for people with pushchairs or anybody who has any baggage with them. That is outrageous.
Because Staveley is a relatively small station, the Government’s schemes and funds such as Access for All, as well as those of previous Governments, were never in a million years going to give it any money. In the end, it is outrageous that one of our railway stations—I could also mention Arnside in my constituency and Ulverston in the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—has serious accessibility problems. It is outrageous that just because these are not huge main line stations they are inaccessible for many people in our community.
New clause 66 seeks to prevent the kind of bidding game that we will always lose because the station is too small. It makes it compulsory for there to be direct decent access to railway stations for people with disabilities and other mobility issues.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I completely accept that access to railway stations—and his particular point about smaller railway stations—is hugely important, and over a long period of time we absolutely must seek to improve accessibility where we are able to do so.
Tim Farron
This issue is within the scope of the Bill, as the Minister rightly said. It may be a transport matter, but it is a Department for Transport matter that will not see a resolution for my constituency or for any other small station of the sort I mentioned. Unless the Access for All fund is quadrupled in size, the chances of a small Lake district station, with a well-above-average number of people using it who have disabilities and are older, ever getting the kind of support it needs is close to zero. It will take legislation to get this moving forward, just as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 did in the first place for many places. This is of huge concern to me: I have no confidence that the Government will tackle this issue in a way that reaches small stations that are totally inaccessible. It is important that the Government are held to account, so I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we are approaching the end of this Committee’s life, I will take the opportunity to thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard reporters and House staff for facilitating our work over what I must say has felt—I do not disparage the Committee in saying this—like a lot longer than four months. We are, thankfully, near the end. This is a simple, straightforward and, I hope, unproblematic new clause for the Government, so I do not need to detain the Committee long in speaking to it.
Despite the strong arguments made by the Opposition at the time—I recall them personally because I served on the Bill Committee—the Government were determined to include within the Housing and Planning Act 2016 provisions requiring local authorities to sell higher-value council homes as they fell vacant, and to remit the income generated from such sales to the Treasury to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants. The sections of that Act that required local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher-value council homes came into force on 12 May 2016, but the consequential determinations were never made.
Having, one assumes, finally appreciated the severe impracticalities of the measure, as well as, one hopes, the social consequences of further reducing England’s already depleted social housing stock, the Government announced in their 2018 social housing Green Paper that they would no longer require local authorities to make higher-value-asset payments. In the words of that Green Paper, the sale of high-value homes
“should be a decision to be made locally, not mandated through legislation”
as they had previously felt was necessary.
However, in addition to making it clear that the Government would not bring those provisions of the 2016 Act into effect, the 2018 Green Paper said that the Government would look to repeal the relevant legislation, “when parliamentary time allows”. Yet, with four years having passed, and all manner of legislation having been taken through the House during that time, the Government have still not repealed those provisions.
New clause 67 simply seeks to have the Government finally implement the decision that they made and outlined in the 2018 Green Paper, and thereby undo the mistake that they made six years ago.
Mr Hollobone, we both know that Ministers have been clearly told to resist all amendments to this Bill, however sensible they might be, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, might see, on this occasion, the soundness of the new clause. I do not think that there is any credible or justifiable reason why this Bill cannot be the legislative vehicle to undo the provision, which the Government have decided should not have been in the 2016 Act. However, if he will not do that, will he please tell us when and how the Government intend to do what they committed, in 2018, to do?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman anticipates, I will not be encouraging the Committee to accept this amendment, although I understand the points behind it, which the hon. Gentleman has already articulated. In the spirit of his brevity, I will seek to be so, too.
The Government have made a number of commitments previously and stand by those commitments. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the provisions laid out in chapter 2 of part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect, and there is no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, so there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future.
The Government remain of the view that legislation will be brought forward, but do not believe that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is the best vehicle for that, as it does not largely address social housing. We therefore wish to focus on the measures within this Bill, while recognising that there will be no change to the status quo—the reality for local authorities around the country—on this matter. We will bring forward further consideration of this point in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that response from the Minister, and particularly his clarification that there will be no change to the status quo. However, I am slightly puzzled because I cannot think of a Bill better placed to deal with a housing and planning provision in a previous Act. The Minister says that such legislation is forthcoming. There is no sign of when that is, or what it might be. I think that we may return to this at a later stage, but I will not divide the Committee on it this morning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 68
Review of Permitted Development Rights
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a review of permitted development rights under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
(2) The review should include an assessment of:
(a) the past effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets;
(b) the quality of housing delivered under permitted development rights;
(c) the impacts of permitted development on heritage, conservation areas and setting;
(d) the estimated carbon impact of the use of permitted development rights since the expansion of permitted development to demolition;
(e) the relative cost to local planning authorities of processing permitted development compared to full planning consents;
(f) potential conflict between existing permitted development rights and the application of national development management policies;
(g) the impact of permitted development rights, or other policies in this Bill designed to deliver streamlined consent, on the efficacy of levelling-up missions.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of the recommendations made by this review no later than twelve months after this Act comes into force.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the government to carrying out a comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The proceedings of this Committee over the many months of its existence clearly detail the unwillingness of Ministers to address the issue of inadequate funding, which is the root cause of many of the challenges local planning authorities face. However, the Government have conceded that those authorities have performance and service quality issues that need to be addressed, and they have committed to developing a planning skills strategy for local planning authorities as a result—an issue I will return to when we discuss new clause 71. With a view to making the planning system more effective at a local level, new clause 70 seeks to probe the Government on a proposal included in their 2020 “Planning for the future” White Paper, as well as older studies such as the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s final report and the Barker review of land use planning—namely, making it a requirement that each local planning authority appoints a chief planning officer or place-maker.
In the immediate post-war decades, the corporate and strategic influence of planners in local government was institutionalised in the senior position of the chief planning officer. However, despite planning being a statutory function, a combination of factors over recent decades has led to a situation where only a minority of councils now employ a head of planning who is a member of the senior management team and reports directly to the chief executive. Analysis undertaken by the Royal Town Planning Institute suggests that one in 10 local authorities does not fund a head of planning role of any kind. That progressive downgrading of the status and prominence of planning officers within local planning authorities, entailing a loss of skills capacity and the dilution of planning as a strategic function, has had a detrimental impact on planning outcomes, including in terms of design standards and quality.
Placing a duty on local planning authorities to appoint a chief planning officer, as provided for by new clause 70, would help ensure not only that councils attract professionals with the necessary high-quality expertise on creating places, connecting communities and spatial planning but that the spatial implications of other local authority functions are properly considered when it comes to planning decisions and local plans, thereby making the system more effective and ensuring that all aspects of place-making are properly considered at a corporate level.
Rachael Maskell
This is a really important new clause. York no longer has a chief planner, which means that planning decisions are often delayed and that the challenge is not brought to developers that are trying to bring forward their plans for fear of litigation. That is a serious consideration for local authorities, which is why this is such an important new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
That example perfectly illustrates the pressures that planning departments are under. There is a general resourcing issue. We know that applications can be delayed by months, if not years, because of a lack of staff. When planning officers move on, applications and all the knowledge around them can be delayed.
There is a wider point, in addition to those general resource pressures, which is that employing chief planning officers with the necessary skills, who sit at an appropriately senior level within the local authority, would have a number of benefits and would help the Government implement the new measures and the burdens they are placing on those authorities through this Bill. As the Minister will know, the Scottish Government introduced legislation in 2019 that requires each planning authority in Scotland to have a chief planning officer, and new clause 17 would achieve the same outcome in relation to England. We believe inserting such a requirement into the Bill would not only assist local planning authorities in implementing the new planning and regeneration measures it contains but would help improve the overall functioning of the planning system, and on that basis, I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this new clause, yet unsurprisingly we will be asking him to withdraw it, too. I understand the sentiments behind it. I think we would all agree that we want a planning system that works and is effective, efficient and expedited where possible, and that appropriate consideration should be given at local level to ensure that placemaking is at the heart of what it does, but this particular new clause is, in my view, too prescriptive. This almost takes me back to my pre-parliamentary days when we were doing organisational design within individual companies. The one thing that we had as a principle was that organisational design needed to be flexible between different organisations, depending on their needs and requirements at the time and the areas that they needed to focus on.
Of course planning should always be a focus, but it is another question whether we need to put formal lines between particular officers and the chief executive, if there even are chief executives in certain local authorities—there are not all the time—so there is a secondary level of conversation about whether it would be section 151 officers or would be dealt with elsewhere. But I do not want to get too lost in the weeds. Although I accept the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is proportionate to mandate these kinds of elements. I absolutely agree with him that local councils should discharge their responsibilities adequately, carefully and expeditiously. I hope that they will do that. We will continue to consider, in the Department, what we can do to ensure that that happens. But on this occasion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause, given that I do not think it is necessary.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I take on board and appreciate the point that he makes about proportionality and whether this new clause is too prescriptive in that regard. I hope that he at least sees the concern that we have tried to highlight with the new clause, which is not only, as I said, the general issue with skills capacity but the status of planning officers within local authorities as a whole and whether that has an impact on planning outcomes. I hope that, given what I have said, the Minister will go away and give the issue some further consideration, not least in terms of what we will come to shortly, which is the skills strategy that the Government are outlining, but I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 71
Comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Bill securing Royal Assent, publish a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector.
(2) The strategy published under subsection (1) must—
(a) include an assessment of the effectiveness of local planning authorities and statutory consultees in delivering upon their existing duties and functions,
(b) include an assessment of the additional resource required for local planning authorities and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by this Act,
(c) set out a funding strategy for a minimum five-year period that meets the assessed resource need under paragraph (2)(b),
(d) include an assessment of the skills and capability of the planning sector and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by the Act, and
(e) explain how the Secretary of State intends to address the skills and capability needs of the planning sector as set out under paragraph (2)(d).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to publishing a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should include.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Me again, Mr Hollobone. New clause 71 is in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North and for Coventry North East. As I made clear just now, the Government have promised to bring forward a planning skills strategy for local planning authorities, and the commitment to do so is set out in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill. We believe that a strategy to address the skills gap is essential to improving the planning system and we support the Government’s efforts in this area. Not only is there an existing problem—as we have just discussed—when it comes to skills shortages within local authority planning departments, but, as we have discussed in many previous sittings, the Bill will require the implementation of entirely new processes; an increase in planning staff with specific specialist skills such as design; and improved capabilities, not least in terms of a mastery of digital and geospatial data and technologies. Therefore, additional pressures are coming down the line as a result of this legislation.
However, the commitment included in the policy paper accompanying the Bill refers only to a planning skills strategy rather than the
“comprehensive resources and skills strategy”
proposed in the 2020 “Planning for the future” White Paper. We believe that that is problematic. As we have debated on numerous occasions during this Committee’s proceedings, there is a clear need for additional resources for local planning authorities—a need that the many new burdens and duties provided for by the Bill will only serve to render more acute. We therefore believe that the Government were right in the 2020 White Paper to commit to a more comprehensive strategy that encompassed both skills and resources. New clause 71 would place a duty on the Government to publish that more comprehensive strategy within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should contain. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
This is an interesting new clause but one that I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I think we share the underlying objective, which is to ensure that our planning system is well resourced, well managed and well executed, but there is the general question of whether we need to legislate for these things, and my view is that we do not need to legislate in the depth that he suggests. I hope he will take some assurance from the fact that this has been discussed several times in my short period in post, including as recently as yesterday, when I spoke to the chief planner on this matter. We continue to consider it in what I hope the hon. Gentleman would think is the detail it deserves. However, I hope he will withdraw the new clause, because I am of the view that the issue does not require legislation in order for the discussion to continue.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the Minister’s response. The new clause was probing, as he will have seen, and I therefore do not intend to press it to a vote. I am reassured that he has already discussed the issue—several times, I think he said—in his short time in post. I hope he will take away the points that I made. We think we need a skills strategy, and I urge him to think about how planning departments in local authorities might be better resourced to do what they need to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 72
Local consent for onshore wind projects in England
“(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Bill securing Royal Assent remove from the National Planning Policy Framework the current restrictions on the circumstances in which proposed wind energy developments involving one or more turbines should be considered acceptable.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to revising the National Planning Policy Framework within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent to remove the onerous restrictions it currently places on the development of onshore wind projects by deleting footnote 54.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 82—Onshore wind planning applications—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In section 15 (generating stations), leave out subsection (2)(aa).
(3) Before Chapter 2 of Part 3 of this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a statement of the Government’s plan to revise national planning guidance to support local planning authorities to grant onshore wind applications below 50MW.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), ‘national planning guidance’ includes—
(a) the National Planning Policy Framework and any subordinate, subsequent or successor guidance for local planning authorities;
(b) the Planning Practice Guidance on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy;
(c) the National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure.
(5) No later than one month after this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out the Government’s plan to encourage and support community energy projects.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report in subsection (5) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Matthew Pennycook
I tabled new clause 72 some time ago, with a view to pressing the Government to remove the de facto moratorium imposed for many years on the development of onshore wind. The growth plan, published late last month, committed the Government to doing just that, by bringing onshore wind planning policy into line with planning for other forms of infrastructure. As hon. Members know, most of the measures set out in that growth plan have been junked as part of the humiliating mini-Budget U-turn, but having seen no evidence to the contrary—the Minister might disappoint me again in this regard—we assume that the decision to remove onshore wind planning restrictions is one of the few to have survived the cull. Even if that is the case, it remains unclear how the Government intend to deliver on that commitment, so that this cheap form of renewable energy generation can be deployed more easily across England. New clause 82 probes the Government on that point.
Three categories of onshore wind project are needed in large numbers: first, projects that are larger than the 50 MW threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects; secondly, projects that are below that 50 MW threshold; and, thirdly, smaller community energy projects. Each is addressed specifically by new clause 82. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) would unpick the 2016 regulations that removed onshore wind in England from the nationally significant infrastructure projects process set out in the Planning Act 2008, meaning that proposed onshore over 50 MW could secure consent through the development consent order system. Subsections (3) and (4) would require the Government to set out in a written ministerial statement how national planning guidance will be amended quickly to enable local authorities to determine applications for onshore wind projects below 50 MW. Finally, subsections (5) and (6) would require the Government to bring forward a plan clarifying how smaller community energy projects will be supported.
To meet our emissions reduction targets and the predicted increase in demand for electricity in coming decades, as the decarbonisation of our economy advances, there is a pressing need to increase our onshore wind capacity rapidly. The Climate Change Committee recommended the installation of between 22 GW and 29 GW by the end of this decade. As Labour Members will continue to argue, doing that at pace would have the added benefit of reducing bills, creating good jobs and bolstering our energy security.
I hope that the Minister will engage thoughtfully with the new clauses, and perhaps provide the Committee with some answers as to how the Government intend to implement the decision set out in the growth plan in respect of onshore wind.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman has received some assurances since he tabled new clause 72. The Government have looked at the issue again, and I am grateful for his acknowledgment of that. I am afraid that I will disappointment him. I completely understand and accept the importance of the issue, while acknowledging that it is a sensitive one in certain parts of the country. I accept that the Committee has been in existence for many months, debating many important things, but given the salience and importance of this policy issue to our broader national discourse, I suggest that it be considered more broadly than simply in this Committee. We will bring forward further information about our continuing commitments and intentions in this area in due course. However, that is not something I can do in Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister is determined to disappoint me in our exchanges, but I accept that he feels unable to opine on the Government’s intentions regarding the onshore wind that they have committed to allowing via the planning system and the various routes that I have mentioned. I hope that the situation will be clarified at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 73
Duty with regard to climate change
“(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when preparing—
(a) national policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,
(b) a development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the PCPA 2004.
(2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when exercising a relevant function under a planning enactment.
(3) A relevant planning authority when—
(a) exercising a planning function must have special regard to, and aim to ensure consistency with, achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and
(b) making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant planning authority is as set out in section 81 (a) and (b) and (d) to (j).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) a relevant function is a function that relates to the development or use of land.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) a planning function is the preparation of—
(a) a spatial development strategy;
(b) a local plan;
(c) a minerals and waste plan;
(d) a supplementary plan; or
(e) any other policy or plan that will be used to inform a planning decision.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) a planning decision is a decision relating to—
(a) the development or use of land arising from an application for planning permission;
(b) the making of a development order; or
(c) an authorisation pursuant to a development order.
(8) In relation to neighbourhood planning, a qualifying body preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or development order must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(9) For the purposes of this section, achieving the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—
(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(10) For the purposes of this section, achieving adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including—
(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan-making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies or exercising their functions in planning decision-making.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is fitting that new clause 73 is the last that I will move, because it deals with an issue that I care deeply about. I have been at pains, throughout our more than 20 sittings, to highlight that from our point of view, the Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals.
The Committee has discussed climate change in debates on several amendments, but not in any great detail. Runaway global heating is by far the most significant challenge faced by the country and the world, so I return to the subject to try once again to convince Ministers to amend the Bill to improve how the planning system responds to the climate emergency.
As I have argued, although there are exemplary English development schemes, they are notable exceptions, and it is patently obvious that the planning system in general is not playing its full part in responding to climate change. Indeed, in numerous important respects, it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to global heating. The Labour party’s strong view is that more must be done to ensure that the planning system contributes effectively to the delivery of our emissions reduction targets, and that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. That view is shared by the Climate Change Committee; its 2022 progress report recommends that
“Net Zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms that are expected as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.”
We take that view because it is clear that existing duties and requirements, which set out how the planning system should help to achieve net zero, are not producing the required results.
The national planning policy framework requires planning to
“shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.
In addition, local planning authorities have a statutory duty under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to include in local plans policies to ensure that development and use of land mitigates and adapts to climate change. They also have powers, under the Planning and Energy Act 2008, to require new developments to source a proportion of their energy requirements from renewable and/or low-carbon and local sources, and, under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, to prioritise measures to tackle climate change at a plan-led level as a strategic priority.
Despite that plethora of duties, requirements and powers, the planning system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress toward net zero emissions by mid-century. To give the Committee a topical example, the Planning Inspectorate recently told West Oxfordshire District Council to remove from the area action plan for a new garden village at Salt Cross requirements to demonstrate net zero operational carbon on site through ultra-low energy fabric specification, low-carbon technologies and on-site renewable energy generation, on the basis that they were not justified or consistent with national policy.
It is clear not only that Ministers have never prioritised the issue of how the planning system can drive climate action, but that the duties and requirements in legislation are insufficiently robust and fail to consistently shape the decisions of local planning authorities, or of the planning inspectors examining plans or appeals. Similarly, the national planning policy framework does not ensure that national policy contributes fully to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Although the Government promised to review it with a view to strengthening guidance on net zero, there is still no sign of the NPPF prospectus that one of the previous Housing Ministers who served on the Committee—forgive me; I forget which one—promised us would materialise this summer. As we argued many sitting ago during the debate on amendment 101 on plan making, the Government should overhaul the Bill to ensure that both national policy and local planning align fully with the commitments in the Climate Change Act 2008, and with statutory frameworks that provide for resilience to climate impacts, such as flooding and heatwaves.
Although there are commendable examples of local authorities seeking to bring forward local plans that include quantified, strategic-level carbon reduction targets, they are few and far between. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance and a purposeful statutory framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net zero. The former requires the production of a revised NPPF that fully supports the drive toward net zero, but the latter can be accomplished by the Government accepting new clause 73, which would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies, or exercising their functions in planning decision making.
The Chair
I know it is a bit cheeky of me, but does the Minister have a long speech or a short one?
Lee Rowley
In the spirit of the brevity that you have requested, Mr Hollobone, let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the new clause, and I share his optimism about our ability to deal with climate change, but I also recognise that that it will take time, as we outlined in debate on previous clauses. Consequently, I will resist the new clause.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined in a number of ways that I will not repeat, there are already significant legal requirements on local authorities to consider climate change, as well as a national policy requiring local planning authorities to take a proactive approach to climate change. I cannot give any guarantees, but I will certainly consider his points, because that is an important part of the housing brief. On this occasion, however, the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will appreciate that I find that response disappointing; there is a clear difference of opinion. We think that the existing duties, requirements and guidance are not having the intended effect that he outlined, and we feel strongly that there is a case for amending primary legislation to ensure that the planning system aligns fully with the Climate Change Act and other statutory frameworks.
I know that we are on the clock, Mr Hollobone, so I will not labour those points, which have been made before, but to drive home how important we feel the issue is, I will press the new clause to a Division.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Seventh sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2022 - (20 Oct 2022)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I feel strongly about the new clause. It relates to the community power that we feel is missing in the legislation. I will make a big case for it, and am interested to hear the Minister’s views. It is an important new clause, which would strengthen the Bill and make a strong contribution to achieving the levelling-up mission, in particular to increase pride of place in every part of the UK by 2030.
A community right to buy, as set out in the new clause, would build on the existing community right to bid legislated for in the Localism Act 2011 and its statutory instruments, which gives communities the right of first refusal once buildings and spaces with significant community value come up for sale. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ own research shows, however, that the existing legislation is not quite doing the job: only 15 assets make it into community ownership for every 1,000 listed as an asset of community value.
Under a much stronger community right to buy, a community organisation or group that is able to raise the required funds when an asset of community value comes up for sale would be able to purchase it without competition. The new clause would extend the existing moratorium from six months to 12 months, because the process of not only raising capital but preparing and building a business plan takes time. Six months has clearly not been enough. This could be a transformative change for many community organisations and the places where we live, and the new clause is very compatible with high street rental auctions, which we discussed in part 8.
In too many places, we see shuttered-up shops and empty buildings blighting high streets and town centres. They are often left vacant by distant private landlords with little stake in places. Members will have stories about that from their constituencies, I have no doubt. Introducing a community right to buy would be a recognition that it is time for that to change. It would give communities new powers to take control of assets in their area and, where assets are in community ownership, we know that vacancy rates are lower, footfall is driven to other businesses, more money stays in the local economy and hiring is more diverse—certainly more than if they are unoccupied.
As I said, the rental auctions are a welcome provision, but the new clause goes further. There is an important point of distinction between the Government and the Opposition on this legislation. Whatever the politics of levelling up, the Bill is born out of a consistent message that we have heard from our communities for a number of years: they want a greater say in what happens in their communities. Having been promised devolution, however, what they will get from the Bill is a transfer of power from Whitehall to, generally, regional or sub-regional bodies. That is a good thing, and we support those provisions in the Bill, but it is an incomplete process; it needs to be accompanied by a transfer of power from town halls and sub-regional bodies to local communities to shape place. People expect that, but as yet do not have it in the Bill. The new clause is a good step to rectifying that. I hope to hear that the Minister is keen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the new clause and for talking us through it. We absolutely agree that the issue is significant and one that we need to get right. Buildings such as community centres and pubs are a hugely important part of our social fabric. I understand the intent behind his community right to buy proposal. We share the same sentiments about getting the process right and giving communities an appropriate and reasonable opportunity to see whether they can take action, while ensuring that the process is not too long or difficult to be feasible.
I absolutely accept the need to review the existing legal and policy frameworks underpinning community ownership. We have said already in the levelling-up White Paper that we will consider how the existing assets of community value framework could be enhanced, but we probably need more time to consider that and whether changes to the framework are workable in practice. It needs consultation and discussion with stakeholders, and we need to work through the implications in significant detail. Although I accept and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, I would prefer not to accept these proposals at this time. I will review them in more detail separately.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that the commitments in the levelling-up White Paper and those I have given just now are sufficient, notwithstanding other activities that may be happening elsewhere on this estate and beyond, and that he will withdraw the new clause.
Alex Norris
I am pleased to hear that, in concept, the Government agree with this proposal. That is good news, and those who are campaigning and active in this space will be very glad to hear that.
There is obviously a commitment to this in the White Paper, and the Minister has accepted that the Localism Act provisions will not do. There needs to be a change, so it needs to be looked at and amended, but the Minister said that the vehicle for that is not the Bill. That seems really strange to me; it seems exactly the moment to do it. I take the Minister at his word, as I always do, and we will continue to advocate very loudly for this change. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I are particularly keen on it. I hope there will be an opportunity in this Session to do that.
I do not intend to divide the Committee on the new clause. If I am entirely honest, I think the vote that will change the future of community power will be a general election, rather than a Division in this Committee, so I am happy to withdraw the new clause on that basis, but it will not go away. The public demand for it will only grow, and we as politicians have to demonstrate that we understand that people want this. We must deliver on it, even if it is not today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 75
Homes England Statutory Objects
“(1) Section 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1)(d), insert—
“(e) to ensure that spending decisions by Homes England are designed to deliver Levelling-up,
(f) to reduce regional inequality by delivering homes and stimulate related economic activity,
(g) to report to Parliament annually assessing the progress that has been made in reducing regional inequalities.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ministers have talked about the importance of building houses, but as a country we are still not building enough affordable homes. Crucially, we are not building them in the places that need them the most to support growth. We could talk about that all day. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has made many good points about why that has happened.
To bring this back to levelling up, we need to ensure that all organisations that touch communities have a strategic drive to level up. At the moment, levelling up is not a strategic priority for Homes England. Its focus is on supply and quality, rather than reducing regional inequalities, so we think we should add that. For example, through the so-called 80:20 rule, housing infrastructure cash has tended to be targeted at London and the south of England.
New clause 75 seeks to address that disconnect. I hope I am on relatively good ground with the Minister. In a previous discussion, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) said in response to one of my interventions that he expected Homes England to adopt levelling up as a statutory objective, but I want to be clear on that.
The new clause would add three statutory objectives. First, it would require Homes England to consider levelling up as part of its spending decisions. Secondly, it would require Homes England to reduce regional inequality by delivering homes and stimulating related economic activity. Thirdly, to ensure transparency and accountability, it would require Homes England to report back once a year on the progress that has been made towards reducing regional inequalities.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to support this new clause, with reference to proposed new subsection (2)(e). There is a real disconnect in Homes England: it does not understand the way communities work, including transport systems, the economy and housing. In addition, the fact that it is so distant—it is London-centric—means that it does not focus on communities. That is a real faultline in Homes England that must be addressed.
Alex Norris
That is precisely why I tabled the new clause. Writing that into the fibre of the being of Homes England would make a real difference in those areas, as my hon. Friend says. The Minister may be able to give us some clarity, but I understand that a revised strategic plan for the Department has been drafted. I will be keen to know from the Minister, if he is unable to tell us quite what is in that, when we might get to see it, and whether it is his view, as it was that of the then Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Harborough that levelling up will be reflected as a priority for the agency in the coming years.
Lee Rowley
The new clause seeks to introduce, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, a series of further statutory obligations on Homes England. Although I understand the sentiments behind those additional statutory obligations and we all, on both sides of the Committee, accept and wish to promote the underlying objectives of levelling up—even if we may disagree about how to describe it—I am not personally convinced that we require additional statutory objectives here.
Homes England is a delivery body. It is a body charged with undertaking the work that is effectively set by the Department. It is a very big delivery body and goes over numerous different areas. I am already working closely with it and look forward to doing so further. However, it is charged with delivery, and the delivery of something requires the Department to set what that is, so my preference remains that we do not legislate on something like this, but that the conversation and discussion continues between the Opposition and the Department and between the hon. Member for Nottingham North and me in order to confirm what the Opposition wish to see in this area and then what the Government wish to see. I think that that is an area, a discussion and a responsibility that should remain with the Department, and then the Department can inform the delivery body of what to do, rather than us mandating in legislation what the delivery body should do. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer. I am not particularly excited by how this happens; my wish is just that it does happen. But I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and his explanation of how he feels. I have absolutely no issue with it sitting as a departmental prerogative. I do not think the two things need to be in tension. The thing for me is that we will keep pushing on this point. I was not as clear, I have to say, from the hon. Gentleman’s answer as I have been from previous answers from previous Ministers that it remains the position of the Government. Perhaps that is something that will be followed up on in due course, because this is really important. The one thing we know about levelling up is that it takes active interventions and that if we leave things to the market or to how things currently are, that will not deliver, so there has to be something different in this regard. I think that this measure was something different, and improving. It has not been successful today and I will not push it to a Division, but we will, again, stay on this point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 76
Standards Board for England
“(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Standards Board for England (‘the Standards Board’).
(2) The Standards Board is to consist of not less than three members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) In exercising its functions the Standards Board must have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of local authorities in England.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make further provision about the Standards Board.
(5) Regulations under this section must provide for—
(a) a code of conduct of behaviour for members and co-opted members of local authorities in England,
(b) the making of complaints to the Standards Board a member or co-opted member has failed to comply with that code of conduct,
(c) the independent handling of such complaints in the first instance by the Standards Board,
(d) the functions of ethical standards officers,
(e) investigations and reports by such officers,
(f) the role of monitoring officers of local authorities in such complaints,
(g) the referral of cases to the adjudication panel for England for determination,
(h) about independent determination by the adjudication panel its issuing of sanctions,
(i) appeal by the complainant to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman,
(j) appeal by the member or co-opted member subject to the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and
(k) the governance of the Standards Board.
(6) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the content of Chapter II (investigations etc: England) of Part III (conduct of local government members and employees) of the Local Government Act 2000, prior to the repeal of that Chapter.
(7) The Standards Board–
(a) must appoint employees known as ethical standards officers,
(b) may issue guidance to local authorities in England on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities,
(c) may issue guidance to local authorities in England in relation to the qualifications or experience which monitoring officers should possess, and
(d) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public.”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause seeks to reinstate the Standards Board for England, which was abolished by the Localism Act 2011, but with the removal of referral to standards committees and the addition of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. As this is probably one of the last times I will speak in this Committee, I want to thank you, your fellow Chairs, the Clerks of the Committee and all House staff.
I am presenting new clause 76, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. It would increase accountability and transparency and restore public faith in local government. Since the Standards Board for England was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011, local authorities have been tasked with making up their own rules and standards of conduct for local councillors. As the current system stands, the monitoring officers, who work side by side with councillors every day of the week, are the very ones tasked with handling complaints about those same councillors. Should they feel that a complaint warrants further investigation, they can ask that the local authority’s standards committee looks further at the matter and decides on suitable sanctions. The committee can be comprised of other councillors, largely from the authority’s majority ruling group. They then decide what happens to their close colleagues and friends. They can decide whether the hearing is in public or not. If they decide to put any sanctions in place, they may be limited to, at most, simply barring them from meetings for a few weeks or taking away their ICT resources. It is abundantly clear that that system is totally unacceptable. Councillors should not be free to police themselves, and monitoring officers should not be put in such potentially impossible situations.
In 2019, a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life highlighted the fact that the vast majority of councillors and officers maintain high standards of conduct. However, there is clear evidence of misconduct by some councillors. The majority of these cases relate to bullying or harassment, or other disruptive behaviour. We have also heard evidence of persistent or repeated misconduct by a minority of councillors. This misconduct occurs at both principal authority level and at parish or town council level.
I know all too well from my own local authority the consequences of limited checks and balances, and of processes open to interference. In 2020, the former leader of my council resigned suddenly in the wake of allegations of bullying and financial concerns, just weeks after our chief executive walked out after 10 years in post. Police and other investigations are ongoing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Murray, in this last sitting of the Committee. I know everyone in the room is incredibly saddened about that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for tabling this new clause. She is right that it truly is an honour for anyone in elected life to be able to serve their community. We all must do so with the highest regard for integrity and public service. However, we will not accept the new clause. I will outline a few reasons why.
The Standards Board for England, which was established under the Local Government Act 2000, was a flawed regime. It was a deliberate decision in the Localism Act 2011 to abolish it. During its short existence, the Standards Board for England allowed politically motivated and vexatious complaints, which had a chilling effect on free speech within local government. As a central Government quango, it was clearly incompatible with the principles of localism.
The Government’s position remains unchanged since then. That was recently restated in our response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards. The Government consider that it is the right of the electorate to determine who represents them and that local issues are best resolved locally. The abolition of the Standards Board restored power to local people. The new clause would effectively reinstate that flawed regime. All councillors are ultimately held to account via the ballot box. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that response. We could rehash all the arguments that were heard last time, but I will not detain the Committee for long. The Minister claims that there were politically motivated and vexatious complaints. The other argument is that there were some genuine complaints. Sanctions were put on councillors and it stopped them from acting in such a manner in the future. Of course the electorate can decide, but sometimes they cannot decide for four years, which is a long time if somebody is abusing public money and their position. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 78
Responsibility of executive councillors to answer questions
“(1) Chapter 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (executive arrangements) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 9DA (functions of an executive: further provision) insert—
‘(9DB) Responsibility to answer questions
A councillor who is a member of an executive must take all reasonable steps to give a timely answer any question about the executive, its functions or the local authority (including about standards of conduct) from any councillor of the local authority that is asked—
(a) in writing, or
(b) orally in a council meeting.’”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause would establish a legal requirement for executive councillors to answer written questions from fellow councillors and oral questions in council meetings.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. I will be brief; I sense that the mood of the Committee is that everyone would like us to finish as soon as possible. This new clause is in much the same spirit as new clause 76 and new clause 79, which we will consider later. Local government can be a mystery to many people. Anyone logging on to their council’s website or attending a meeting would testify to how confusing procedures can be. In this place, those who hold the position of Secretary of State or Minister are rightly asked questions in the Chamber, in the public domain. We may not always like the answers—in fact, I very rarely do—but the process allows a level of public accountability. In local councils, though, it is up to local councillors whether they answer questions from other members. I am aware that the executive members of many councils already do, but I have also witnessed the opposite approach, where every single question is dismissed, shut down or deferred for a written response. Surely those in senior elected positions, such as council leaders, or cabinet members who hold responsibility for a service and budgets, should answer questions from other members. To refuse to do so is to be unaccountable. New clause 79 seeks to positively enhance the public’s faith in their local government representatives. Once again, I look forward to the Minister’s views.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the new clause, which has a noble aim. I think we all believe that the transparency of any executive, national or local, is incredibly important. Accountability is equally important, particularly considering the point about trust in politicians and politics.
As the hon. Lady outlined, the new clause would put into statute a requirement for executive councillors to answer questions from other councillors. It is vital that back-bench councillors be able to hold the executive to account. In their published constitutions, many councils will already set out the procedure for both elected members and members of the public to ask questions at full meetings of the council, or at any other committee meeting. However, we firmly believe that the Government would be going beyond the role that they should play in local matters if they required in law that such councillors answer questions. Local authorities are already subject to checks and balances as part of the local government accountability framework. In addition, authorities with executive governance arrangements are required to have overview and scrutiny committees, governed by statutory guidance, to ensure that members of the authority who are not part of the executive can hold the executive to account. It would not be right for central Government to dictate the minute details of local authority arrangements, although I appreciate the noble aim behind the new clause. I kindly ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister, and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 79
No role for councillors in recruitment or duties of monitoring officers
“(1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (designation and reports of monitoring officer), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) No elected councillor of a relevant authority in England may have any role in—
(a) the recruitment or selection of the officer designated monitoring officer under subsection (1), or
(b) the performing by the monitoring officer of the functions imposed by this section and, where relevant, section 5A.’” —(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause would prohibit the involvement of elected councillors in the recruitment or duties of officers appointed to monitor lawbreaking, maladministration, failure and injustice within a local authority or its executive.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I appreciate that the majority of local authority appointments of chief officers such as chief executives or monitoring officers are made after a robust interview that has followed human resources processes. Those processes can involve senior elected members. However, I have witnessed, and am aware of local authorities that experience, inappropriate or partial influence being exerted when officers are conducting operational business. I recall once sitting with a chief executive and a leader, and the leader was demanding that something be done that the officer was deeply uncomfortable with. The leader shouted at the chief executive, “I hired you; I will fire you if you don’t do this.” I could go on, but I think the point is made.
It is clear why there should be no elected member involvement whatsoever in the appointment of any local authority monitoring officer. These officers work hard and are incredibly professional. They are already working in politically restricted, tightly governed senior roles. They should never be exposed to unacceptable scenarios, such as the one I just outlined. That is why new clause 79 is important. I hope the Minister agrees.
Dehenna Davison
I am sure the hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that we will not accept the new clause. First, I want to say that the example of terrible practice that she witnessed is not isolated. All examples of bad practice absolutely must be called out, but there is a strict framework already in place. The new clause appears to seek to protect the objectivity of monitoring officers, and their ability to speak truth to power—that is, to elected members. The new clause requires that elected councillors have no role in the selection or recruitment of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer. Of course, the monitoring officer is one of three crucial statutory officers that any principal local authority must have, the other two being the chief executive and the section 151 officer. Some councils may already have designated the responsibility for appointing the monitoring officer to the head of paid service, but we must remember that councils are independent, democratic bodies that have the freedom and flexibility to manage their workforce. If they choose to operate a member appointment panel, it would be neither appropriate nor consistent with the principles of localism to prevent them from doing so.
The new clause would also mean that elected councillors played no role in a monitoring officer’s performance of their duties. However, monitoring officers’ specific speak-truth-to-power role is already protected in their responsibilities under sections 2 and 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Those statutory responsibilities include reporting anything that they believe to be illegal or to amount to maladministration relating to the conduct of councillors and officers, or to the operation of the council’s constitution. On that basis, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary, and it is contradictory to the core principles of localism in which we so strongly believe. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that response. My new clause would have given an extra layer of protection. She has misunderstood how impossible an environment can make it to speak truth to power. The clause would have helped people who are stuck in that situation, but I am happy to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 80
Licensing scheme: holiday lets
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require each relevant local authority in England to introduce a local licensing scheme for holiday lets.
(2) Any local licensing scheme introduced pursuant to regulations made under subsection (1)(a) must require any owner of a holiday let to—
(a) obtain any fire, gas and electricity safety certificates as specified by the scheme;
(b) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations;
(c) secure a licence for the holiday let from the local authority prior to trading;
(d) obtain a licence and renew this licence—
(i) every three years,
(ii) when the property changes ownership, or
(iii) when there is a change in the person holding day to day responsibility for the property; and
(e) not let out a property without a valid licence.
(3) A local authority introducing a licensing scheme must—
(a) outline—
(i) the terms and conditions of the licence,
(ii) the application process for securing the licence, and
(iii) the licence renewal process;
(b) determine an annual licence fee for each licensed property;
(c) inspect any property prior to issuing a licence;
(d) require the owner of a short term holiday let to —
(i) apply for and hold a licence to operate for each property they let prior to trading,
(ii) pay a licence application fee and annual charge for the licence,
(iii) renew the licence as required by the local authority under their licensing scheme,
(iv) pay any fines associated with breaches of a licence as laid out in the local licensing scheme,
(v) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations, and
(vi) provide up to date property details including details of who will hold responsibility for the day to day management of the property;
(e) maintain an up to date list of all licensed short term holiday let properties within the local authority area to include—
(i) the address of the property,
(ii) whether this is a shared property occupied by the owner or a separate let,
(iii) how many people are eligible to stay at the property, and
(iv) how many days of the year that the property will be advertised for letting and be let;
(f) inspect the property following a report from the public of an issue of concern relating to the property or to any other property owned by the same person;
(g) monitor compliance with the licensing scheme;
(h) publish an annual report on the number and location of licences including the number and location of licences in each ward and their impact on local residential housing supply and details of any breaches reported and fines issued; and
(i) provide residents adjacent to the short term holiday let contact details of their enforcement officer should they experience any issue at the property.
(4) A licensing scheme must allow the local authority to—
(a) set out details of any area where the granting or renewal of licences will be banned, suspended or limited;
(b) set limits and or thresholds on the level of the licencing permitted in any area;
(c) require property owners to renew their licences every three years, or when a property changes in ownership;
(d) issue fines or remove a licence of a property if—
(i) fire, health and safety conditions are breached,
(ii) criminal activity occurs at the property, or
(iii) excess noise and nuisance or anti-social behaviour rules as set out in the licensing conditions are repeatedly breached, or
(iv) the registered owner or the person listed as holding responsibility for the property has had licences on other properties removed; and
(e) issue penalties or licensing bans on those renting properties without a licence.
(5) In this section—
An ‘area’ may be—
(a) a polling district;
(b) a ward; or
(c) the whole local authority area;
‘holiday let’ means—
(a) a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday, or
(b) any part of a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant to occupy that part of the house for a holiday;
‘relevant local authority’ means—
(a) a district council in England;
(b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council;
(c) a London borough council;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause provides for the introduction of a licensing scheme for holiday lets.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, for the last time on this Bill. The new clause is in my name, and the name of hon. Members from across the House; it also has much support from colleagues who have not been able to sign their names to it because of their position in Government.
I hope that the Government will buck the trend and accept the new clause, because it is so important. Up and down the country, there is a sharp rise in the number of Airbnbs. Across the world, jurisdictions are licensing Airbnbs in order to control what is happening not just in the holiday industry, but in housing. This new clause would address the crisis in communities.
Over the last five years, there has been a sharp rise in Airbnbs in my community; the number is 2,118 and still rising sharply. The reason is that private rented accommodation is being flipped into Airbnbs because of the differentiation in tax introduced by George Osborne to try to address the buy-to-let market. Unfortunately, that is having serious consequences. Our stock of housing for purchase is also being hoovered up, mainly by purchasers from London and the south-east. They are buying family houses as assets to turn them into Airbnbs. That impacts not just housing, but communities, which are becoming more fragmented and fractious. Weekend after weekend, there are parties in these properties—that happens in the urban setting that I represent—and it causes people to feel unsafe in their community. It is breaking up communities.
It is vital that the Government moves forward by supporting this new clause. They should also look at what is happening in Scotland, where the Government have just passed legislation to license Airbnbs, not just register them. I appreciate that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, took forward a consultation on Airbnbs in his former role; however, any scheme has to go further than registration.
This evening, Councillor Michael Pavlovic in York will move a motion that would allow local authorities to go as far as they can on the issue, but it will not be far enough. That is why we need legislation to license Airbnbs. I draw the Minister’s attention to my private Member’s Bill, which is due for its Second Reading on 9 December. I trust that we can work together to ensure that that will be the moment—if not today—that we see the full licensing of Airbnbs.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I want to say a big thank you for your role in chairing many sittings of this Committee, Mrs Murray. I also thank the Clerks, who have supported you and all of us.
Earlier this week, we offered Government Members the opportunity to vote to enable local authorities to compel developers to build only affordable housing for a period of time, and they rejected that. Now, the hon. Member for York Central has put forward a very reasonable and timely suggestion about how we might do something about the stock that we have. If they will not do one or other, what is meant to happen to our housing stock? The reality for communities such as mine in Cumbria is that the evaporation of the long-term housing rental market has led to enormous hardship. It is a catastrophe.
It was a problem before the pandemic, but the combination of the stamp duty cut, introduced by the last Chancellor but three at the beginning of the pandemic, and a failure to acknowledge the consequences of the staycation boom, meant an absolute avalanche of full-time residential property going into either the second home market or the short-term rental market. That has had absolutely devastating consequences.
The fact that the Government have not kept their manifesto promise to scrap section 21 evictions means that there is literally an open door for any landlord to get rid of the people they have in those homes, and those homes then go into short-term holiday let usage. In South Lakeland, in my constituency, in one year we saw a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. As hon. Members can image, South Lakeland had tonnes to start off with, so that is a vast number. Where did they come from? They were not new build properties, but existing homes that were lived in by families and others who have now been evicted, not just from those homes but from those communities.
I do not want to make any assumptions, but I imagine that in a community such as yours, Mrs Murray, the situation is similar and you have lost some of the full-time population. What then happens to the working-age population? I can think of successful primary schools that have lost 20% to 40% of their pupils for that reason in the last two years.
Cumbria Tourism undertook a survey of its member organisations and businesses, which work throughout the lakes, dales and other parts of Cumbria, and found that some 63% could not work at capacity over the last year because they did not have the staff to do the job. The lack of affordable housing kills economies as well as ruining family life and undoing the fabric of our communities, including schools, churches, pubs, businesses and bus services, the demand for which dries up.
The situation is catastrophic. If the Government will not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York Central, the amendment I proposed or any of the other amendments that have been proposed, what are they going to do about the crisis in our existing housing stock in communities such as those in York, Cumbria and many other areas of the country? They might nod and show their concern, but they must act. This is an absolute emergency, so act. This is something they could do, so why would they not do it?
Dehenna Davison
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for raising the issue so passionately. I know she is deeply concerned about it and has been campaigning incredibly hard on it throughout her time in Parliament. I note she mentioned her private Member’s Bill. I have already offered to engage with her on issues that we have discussed previously in Committee, and I am happy to engage with her on that as well.
Online platforms have enabled greater choice in accommodation for holidaymakers and have brought benefits to the tourism sector. On the one hand, it is an incredible compliment to a place to see a lot of Airbnb rental properties popping up, as the area becomes a tourism hotspot and a lot of people want to visit incredible places such as York and Cumbria, but unfortunately we know the issues that can come with that as well.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned local school numbers declining and local shops and pubs seeing their year-round trade turning to seasonal trade, which is not something they necessarily expected or planned for. Many hon. Members from across the House are familiar with such arguments and have raised them in debates. I have had particular representations from hon. Members from Cornwall and Devon, who I know face similar issues.
The hon. Member for York Central mentioned illegal activity and gave examples from her constituency. That is another area where it is crucial that we get our policy right. That is why DCMS launched the call for evidence on this topic, which she made reference to, as an important first step in understanding how we can continue to reap the benefits of short-term lets, while also protecting holidaymakers and local interests.
The Government are now carefully analysing over 4,000 responses to this exercise. What local people and affected stakeholders have said will help to inform the development of evidence-based and proportionate policy proposals. Accepting this amendment before we have analysed those responses would pre-empt the necessary policy development needed. We plan to publish our response to the consultation in the usual way. We want to make sure we get the policy right because we recognise that there are so many issues related to it.
Rachael Maskell
I have two points. First, could the Minister set out a timeline? This is so urgent because of the pace of change, so we really need to understand what the timeline is. There has been a lot of talk and debate in this place; many colleagues from across the House have articulated the pain this issue is causing their communities. Secondly, would the Minister be willing to hold a cross-party roundtable to enable Members to get a full understanding of those experiences? The most acute problems are essentially occurring in holiday destinations and places that people come to visit, so it would be important to ensure a combination of coastal, rural and urban. That could help to move the debate forward and land the legislation in the right place, so that it pays heed not just to what are seen as the benefits of the short-term holiday let industry, but to our communities.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive way she is approaching this important debate. As I say, this is a DCMS consultation, so I cannot provide a timeline today, but I will write to her to follow up and try to provide as much clarity as I can on that point. I would certainly be happy to hold a roundtable, but this specific policy does not actually sit within my brief. However, I will endeavour to write to the relevant Ministers and encourage them to take this up. As I say, I will follow up in writing on those points.
Rachael Maskell
If I may, I seek the indulgence of the Committee a little longer. The Minister has raised a real issue here: the matter now needs to move into the Levelling Up Department. The impact on housing is enormous. Although I appreciate that it started in DCMS, it now needs to move, because this is essentially a housing issue. It is about how the housing sector is working, rather than about the tourism sector. The industry has grown and become far more professionalised; it now clearly needs to move Departments in order to bring forward the legislation.
Dehenna Davison
On that point, I have heard from my colleague sitting beside me, the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, that he is happy to meet with the hon. Lady to discuss the matter in further detail.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to both Ministers for that, and I welcome that opportunity. I am quite relaxed about other colleagues also bringing their experiences to that meeting. It is important that we get this nailed now and get it right for all our communities. It is far too important. Time is of the essence. I will most certainly take up that offer.
I will not push the new clause to a vote today, although I will bring it back on Report. I cannot wait around—people in my community are exiting at such an alarming rate that I need to get this addressed. However, I thank the Ministers for being able to debate this matter this afternoon and to have a bit more time on it. It is of real importance for all of us and we have to get it right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 81
Cycling, walking and rights of way plans: incorporation in development plans
“(1) A local planning authority must ensure that the development plan incorporates, so far as relevant to the use or development of land in the local planning authority’s area, the policies and proposals set out in—
(a) any local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans prepared by a local transport authority;
(b) any rights of way improvement plan.
(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the local planning authority shall also have regard to any policies or proposals contained within a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans and any rights of way improvement plan which have not been included as part of the development plan, so far as material to the application.
(3) In this section—
(a) ‘local planning authority’ has the same meaning as in section 15LF of PCPA 2004;
(b) ‘local transport authority’ has the same meaning as in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000;
(c) ‘local highway authority’ has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;
(d) a ‘rights of way improvement plan’ is a plan published by a local highway authority under section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require development plans to incorporate policies and proposals for cycling and walking infrastructure plans and rights of way improvement plans. Local planning authorities would be required to have regard to any such policies and proposals where they have not been incorporated in a development plan.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief in speaking to new clause 81. Cycling and walking are the future. Ensuring that walking and cycling infrastructure plans are hardwired into the planning system is not before its time. That infrastructure may vary from charging points for electric bikes and parking spaces for bikes to wider transport planning and planning for cycling, walking and wheeling routes. We must also think about wheelchair users and people who use other accessible forms of transport, who also need safe, accessible routes. That is essential in any new build area of housing across the country. Rights of way have to be determined and we have to ensure that all routes facilitate greater take-up of active travel. We need to see a real transition from the dependency on cars, which so many communities have, into a new era.
They were talking on the news today about the shortfall in available raw materials, which is preventing the escalation of electric vehicle production. A good public transport system sitting alongside active travel will help to facilitate that. Infrastructure can often deter people from participating in cycling and walking, yet in places such as Holland, where there has been significant investment, that is the main mode of transport for short distances. With the advent of electric scooters and electric bikes, people can make journeys over longer distances. Good, safe infrastructure makes a real difference. Holland has had a 40-year campaign to reach its current standard, and we know that other communities across the world are raising their standards. I draw the Minister’s attention to Ghent, which has made a real pivot in its active travel offer. It is time that we really look at ensuring cycling, walking and wheeling rights of way plans are hardwired into development plans.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Member for her amendment on this important matter, and for recognising the importance of walking and cycling and the important role that the planning system plays. I understand the sentiment behind the new clause, and I accept the challenge that she gives, rightly, to the system and the Government as a whole, but I am not convinced that it is necessarily proportionate to hardwire, as she says, this level of detail in legislation.
My preference is for these matters to continue to be dealt with at national planning policy level. There is already a requirement for local authorities to consider such issues when preparing a development plan; they are also material considerations in planning decisions. Local authorities have tools already. I do not think the Bill changes that in any way, and it will perhaps even strengthen the importance of national policies when they relate to such decision making.
My preference is to remain with the existing NPPF on transport issues, particularly around the promotion of walking and cycling, with the recognition that these can be material considerations in dealing with planning applications already. Given that the decision maker must take into account all material considerations, I am not convinced that this additional provision is necessary in law at this stage, although I understand the underlying point. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Rachael Maskell
We as a nation creep forward. This afternoon, we have seen why it is a creep, rather than the change we see in other jurisdictions. We need to do far more on enabling and facilitating active travel. I will not press the new clause this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister takes the proposal back and looks again at how we can escalate, within the national planning framework, getting good-quality infrastructure built for cycling, walking and wheeling. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 83
Review of public health and poverty effects of Act
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”—(Rachel Maskell.)
This new clause would require the Government to report on the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of the Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hear a cheer in the room as I rise to my feet for a final time. I thank you, Mrs Murray, for your chairing of the Committee. I also thank your colleagues, the Clerks and Hansard. We have had a lot of really important debates.
New clause 83 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Reviewing our public health policy is really important. Understanding its context and impact on poverty is at the heart of what levelling up is all about. The new clause would ensure a real focus on the data that is required and a proper review of public health policies, which is vital, with a report being laid before Parliament within six months of the passing of the Bill. That would ensure that Parliament’s eyes are on the issue.
The new clause focuses on relative and absolute poverty, and putting forward the data that has often been debated and disputed in the House, so that we can see what is happening from an authoritative source. We ultimately have to measure what is happening. Levelling up cannot be just about the infrastructure and the pounds spent; it has to be about the outcomes that really impact people. When poverty is such an issue in our country, we have to look at the inequality and disparities that we see. Having data to properly manage the system and drive inputs and outcomes is really important.
The new clause also looks at the socioeconomic inequalities and population groups with protected characteristics. We all know that black, Asian and minority ethnic, LGBT, elderly, young and disabled people experience disparity when it comes to so many issues within the levelling-up missions. It is important to look at ensuring that people with protected characteristics have the necessary assessment to ensure that they, too, are levelling up and not being left behind. Covid was a real example of why that is so necessary; we saw it for whole swathes of communities, particularly those from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community, who faced the worst impact because of their socioeconomic status.
Life expectancy, and healthy life expectancy, is really important for planning an economy for the future. We need to understand its impact, particularly on excess deaths due to poverty, to ensure that we are monitoring what is happening among those communities. In my constituency there is a 10-year disparity in life expectancy between the poorest and the richest communities. That is a really serious issue within levelling up. I appreciate that there is a debate within that about extent of life versus quality of life, but those with shorter lives also do not have a good quality of life on many occasions. We have to drive down inequality in that area.
The new clause also looks at funding for public health provision. We know that there is a real deficit in areas of deprivation, and we need to ensure a proper matrix for health spending as we move forward. The new clause is about providing the good, solid data that is required to analyse what is happening with the levelling-up agenda, and putting that before Parliament and Ministers to ensure that the right policy decisions are being made to level up our country.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for these proposals, which speak to an objective that I think we all share of reducing the entrenched spatial inequalities across the UK. That is fundamentally what levelling up is all about.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, the specific mechanisms proposed may not be the best way to add value in this area for a couple of reasons. First, there are robust and long-standing mechanisms in place to assess trends in public health and poverty already, including through the public health outcomes frameworks, relevant statistics for which are regularly updated and published by the Office for National Statistics. Additionally, the Bill will create a statutory responsibility on the Government to define and report against long-term levelling-up missions to address spatial disparities. The missions in the levelling-up White Paper, for example, include living standards, pay and productivity, and healthy life expectancy. Those are particularly relevant in addressing the themes and concerns that the hon. Member raised.
The Government have established cross-departmental structures to measure long-term progress against their levelling-up missions and to assess how their policies and programmes are contributing to making progress towards those missions. I refer the hon. Member to comments that I have already made about the spatial data unit, and the role it can play in helping on that assessment. The measures in the Bill will not operate in isolation but as part of a much wider range of both legislative and non-legislative measures, which will in turn shape outcomes on the ground. It is right that we should pursue our policy objectives through the more systemic frameworks that I have outlined rather than what could be seen as more fragmented reports and reviews, as called for in the new clause.
The hon. Member will be aware of the well-established mechanisms overseen by His Majesty’s Treasury and highlighted in “Managing Public Money” and elsewhere to assess the impact of policy interventions on the public finances and to allow Parliament to hold the Government to account on their expenditure. As such, we do not feel that an additional specific assessment of the impact of measures in the Bill would add value as we pursue our aim to level up the country. I hope that I have provided enough reassurance for her to withdraw the motion.
Rachael Maskell
I listened with interest to the Minister’s response. The challenge that I would put back to her, and ask her to reflect on further, is that it is because we have a very fragmented framework across many different Government Departments that we are not making progress. While the levelling-up agenda was very much a central agenda, with some clear missions to try to measure it and move it forward, excluding this form of monitoring and advancing public health information by leaving out the new clause will not help the Government.
While I appreciate what the Minister says about the spatial data unit, this is really about the analysis and bringing the whole agenda together on the levelling-up missions, to be able to start driving down the inequality that exists across our society, which is so damaging to our nation and to people across the country. I will not push the new clause to a vote—I am sure that it will return at later stages of the Bill—but I ask her to reflect on how we bring these agendas together. On Second Reading—if we can remember that far back—we were very much talking about trying to bring an agenda together in order to take our country forward. Leaving out really important elements such as this could take us back, not forward. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Alex Norris
I want to put on record for myself and on behalf of my colleagues our thanks to you, Mrs Murray, and your colleagues in the Chair; to the world-class Clerks for all their assistance; to the Doorkeepers and the Hansard Reporters for all their work; and to Government colleagues, both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, for the discussions and debates. I know that they have been lengthy, but that is because the Bill is important, and we appreciate the spirit in which that has been done. I extend that to the Government’s officials, as well as our own staff. I am very grateful. Thank you.
Dehenna Davison
For fear of this sounding like an Oscars acceptance speech, I have an awful lot of thank yous to say. First, I express my sincere thanks to the shadow Ministers. This is my first Bill Committee as a Minister. Hopefully it will not be my last, but given today, who knows? I thank them for the very constructive and warm way in which they have engaged with me, and with my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, on the Bill. There are some incredibly important debates to have. We have had some of them, and I know that many more happened before I took over as the Minister in this area. The fact that they have all been conducted in such a constructive and jovial way is something that I am certainly very grateful for.
I am also incredibly grateful to the officials who got us briefed on the Bill and got us through it, and to the Clerks and all Chairs of the Committee, including you, Mrs Murray. I am very grateful to members of the Committee of all colours for the spirit in which we have conducted it today, and to Whips past and present, Parliamentary Private Secretaries past and present, and Doorkeepers. I think I have pretty much everyone covered. A huge thank you from me. I am delighted to see the Bill through to the end of Committee stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Homes and Buildings: Levelling Up Health and Wellbeing
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of homes and buildings in levelling up health and wellbeing.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is a very important issue. I understand from others that some other statements are being made at this moment in time, or thereabouts—well, people cannot always be in this Chamber when other things are perhaps more engaging.
We have not had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall or, indeed, in Westminster for a year and a half, maybe even two. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings and we wanted to refresh the House’s awareness of the issue, so Westminster Hall seemed the obvious place to come to do just that. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to my application and I am delighted to have secured a debate to discuss the very important role homes and buildings play in levelling up health and wellbeing.
I came into the House in 2010, when the independent Marmot review was taking place. Let me set the scene with a quote from a House of Commons Library paper:
“The causal link between poor housing conditions and poor health outcomes is long established. The independent Marmot Review (2010) said housing is a ‘social determinant of health’ meaning it can affect physical and mental health inequalities throughout life. The Marmot Review 10 Years On—Health Equity in England, recorded an expansion in research on the relationship between poor housing and health”.
We cannot divorce the two. Quite simply, wellbeing, health and housing are intertwined. Today’s debate is important because, as the Government move forward with their policies and strategies, we need a clear strategy that takes up the issue of housing and health. The 10-year review of Marmot said:
“Poor-quality housing harms health and evidence shows that exposure to poor housing conditions (including damp, cold, mould, noise) is strongly associated with poor health, both physical and mental. The longer the exposure to poor conditions, including cold, the greater the impact on mental and physical health. Specific physical effects are morbidity including respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease and communicable disease transmission, and increased mortality. In terms of mental health impacts, living in non-decent, cold or overcrowded housing and in unaffordable housing has been associated with increased stress and a reduction in a sense of empowerment and control over one’s life and with depression and anxiety. Children living in overcrowded homes are more likely to be stressed, anxious and depressed, have poorer physical health, attain less well at school and have a greater risk of behavioural problems than those in uncrowded homes.”
I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health—I am wearing my two chairs’ hats. Furthermore, of the many all-party parliamentary groups on which we all serve, I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous disease. Again, these issues are key. That is why the debate is so important.
Let me spend some time on the hazards. Across England, Yorkshire and the Humber are the regions with the highest proportion of homes with category 1 hazards, at 15%. The east had pretty damning figures as well. The figure for Northern Ireland, which concerned me greatly, was that 9% of homes had a problem. The midlands was at 13%, the north-west 12% and the south-east and London had the lowest proportion. I find that hard to believe, considering some of the information I am aware of. I see that the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is present to speak on behalf of the Labour party, and some figures from others’ constituencies may contradict what is being said. An estimated 18% of homes in Wales had a category 1 hazard. Given the busy job that I do in my office as an elected MP, I know that mould growth in houses—be they Housing Executive houses back home, housing associations or private rentals—affects people’s health.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked how the Government’s levelling-up policy planned to tackle
“illnesses directly linked to living in cold, damp and dangerous conditions.”
The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), replied that it was an important issue and that a
“decent home can promote good health and protect from illness and harm.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 12.]
All those things set the scene for where we are today and why it is so important that we move forward in a constructive and positive fashion. Most of us spend over 90% of our time indoors, so the nation’s homes and buildings should positively contribute to our physical and mental health and wellbeing, and not in any way diminish it.
The covid-19 pandemic highlighted prevailing health inequalities in our society. The most vulnerable are more likely to live in unhealthy homes that are damp, energy-inefficient, noisy, poorly ventilated and crowded. The inextricable link between our health and wellbeing, and the homes and buildings where we work, rest and play, is clear—never more so than during the pandemic. There were a great many negatives to the pandemic, and it emphasised some of the areas where improvement can take place. Having to spend more time in our homes, with many more people working remotely, emphasised the impact that our homes and buildings have on our health. Unhealthy housing impacts on economic growth, business performance, educational attainment, life chances, climate change and our nation’s health and wellbeing. Therefore, it makes sense to join up policy thinking, frameworks and standards and to ensure that all future housing, net zero and health policies do not contribute to, cause or exacerbate poor health and wellbeing.
The current energy and cost of living crises will only increase the problems caused by unhealthy homes and buildings. It is like a double whammy, because as the energy crisis hits and prices increase, that puts pressure on landlords, tenants and families from sides that they were perhaps not expecting. Many charities and other bodies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland predict—I hope they are wrong—a record number of excess winter deaths this year linked to thermal inefficiency in the housing stock. We must try to prevent deaths and ensure that they do not become a critical issue, although all the pointers seem to indicate that that will happen. There is strong evidence to support the idea that poor-quality and unhealthy homes cause or exacerbate poor health, thereby placing more pressure on our NHS.
Like others in this Chamber, I believe that if we can have early diagnosis and stop things happening in homes, we can improve further down the line when we do not have the major health problems that come off the back of poor housing. The Building Research Establishment, or BRE, estimated that in 2010 poor housing cost the NHS £2.5 billion in first-year treatment costs—it is a big figure. Again, that indicates exactly where the issues are and why it is so important that every step is taken to address them. Building design, the retrofitting of buildings and the renovation of the current housing stock should adopt a holistic approach.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I agree with him that the places we call home can have a huge impact on our health and wellbeing, particularly given the amount of time that we spend in them. In rural areas such as my part of Devon, that is even more pronounced, as buildings tend to be older, which means that they are often less energy-efficient and lack modern insulation. Does the hon. Member agree that the key to protecting people’s health and wellbeing is to ensure that buildings, and particularly our homes, are properly insulated?
Jim Shannon
I fully support that. I am probably of a greater age than nearly everybody in this Chamber, and I remember when we had not heard of insulation. We know about it today, and it is clearly part of having healthy homes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which sets the scene for what we need to do. I look to the Minister for a positive response.
Energy efficiency, indoor air quality, ventilation, lighting and acoustics are all clearly big issues, and the health, comfort and wellbeing of residents should be placed at the heart of good building and infrastructure planning. I understand that the Government have a policy to ensure that new builds adhere to those conditions to ensure the betterment that we want to see, but we must also address the question of homes that do not have those things, which brings me to insulation. There must be a plan of action. Will the Minister give us some indication of what the Government are doing to help buildings that do not come up to that standard?
I am very pleased to see the shadow Minister in her place, and I look forward to her contribution. I also look forward to the Minister’s contribution, and I wish him well in his new role.
UK Green Building Council research found that 75% of new developments have poor thermal quality and performance—the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. To level up and reduce health inequalities, the Government must commit to deliver higher standards, and performance must be measured rather than just designed. It is very easy—I say this respectfully—to have a plan of action, but we also need the action. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
We need to futureproof the built environment. New building and planning law must be designed and reformed to be fit for our long-term future. Some 85% of our homes will still exist in 2050. It is a sobering thought that the homes that are built today are there for a long time, so let us make sure energy efficiency, wellbeing and health implications are all part of an intricate system.
To level up, we need a national retrofitting strategy focused on delivering health and wellbeing. The Building Research Establishment estimates that poor housing in England costs £18.6 billion per annum. That affects the health of thousands of people. Again, that is really worrying.
The subject of the debate is critical for people’s health. Health and wellbeing must now be placed at the heart of Government housing, environment, skills, planning and energy policy in order to level up and reduce the UK’s health inequalities. There is a collateral burden on our healthcare, education and public services.
I thank the Library staff for their background notes, which greatly enhance my knowledge of the subject and add to the debate. They refer to a number of things, including housing and covid-19, which we all, as elected representatives, know about. We must also look at housing and dementia. I am sure it is no different for other Members, but I have more constituents than ever being diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer’s. The population is living longer. That does not always mean that people with Alzheimer’s or dementia are of a certain age, of course, but the fact is that most of them are. There are some things that we need to do about housing and dementia. I have also never seen so many people with mental health issues. Covid-19, dementia and mental health are three things that need to be correlated with housing and health.
The all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings is calling on the Government and the Minister to take forward its recommendations in its “Building our Future: Laying the Foundations for Healthy Homes and Buildings” white paper, to adopt a more holistic and joined-up approach to tackle the problem of unhealthy homes and buildings in Britain, and to adopt Lord Crisp’s Healthy Homes Bill. I am sure that the Minister is very aware of that. He might wish to comment now. The white paper sets a clear direction and has a clear focus, which is helpful. I always make my comments in a constructive fashion; I am in the business, as we all are, of solutions, not negativity. If we highlight the issues, we can highlight the solutions.
Lord Crisp has called for a joined-up, holistic approach to healthy homes, health and wellbeing in the context of the Government’s levelling-up agenda—which I know the Government are committed to and which I welcome—the Government’s heat and buildings strategy, the decent homes standard review, the Building Safety Act 2022 and updated planning reforms. Those are five things into which the Government have a direct input.
We must also recognise the cost benefits of improving and levelling up our homes and communities, to remove health inequalities and positively contribute to the climate agenda. We cannot ignore climate change; it is a reality. When we build our homes, we must recognise that we need more energy efficiency. We want to meet the Government’s net zero 2050 target, to which this United Kingdom is committed.
We also want to commit to introduce legislation that addresses the growing health problems caused or exacerbated by the UK’s unhealthy homes and buildings. I watched a news story on flats in London. I just could not believe that anybody could ever live healthily in some of those properties, with the decay and mould growth. The danger to people was quite real.
We must also act to reduce health inequalities right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am ever mindful that the Minister is directly responsible only for England—and ensure that Britain’s homes and buildings do not cause or exacerbate poor health and wellbeing. The cost to society and the NHS is far too vast, and it is the poorest in our society who are particularly affected; it always is. I have a duty—we all do—to help those who need help most, and those are often the poorest in our society.
We must also enshrine a clear definition of health and wellbeing in future legislation. The healthy homes and buildings APPG white paper referenced the World Health Organisation’s definition of health as
“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being”.
A healthy home is a safe home. However, at present, many homes are unsafe. I have some information from a group that I work with back home, Electrical Safety First, which gave me some stats for England. In England alone, there are five fires every week caused by electrical installations in homes. Electricity causes the majority of house fires, accounting for 53.4% of all accidental dwelling fires. I have also worked with a good friend, a fella called Michael Hilland, who was an electrical contractor. He no longer has his business, but he advises. I thank him and his organisation for the information.
Electrical Safety First believes that house fires can be reduced by mandating periodic electrical safety checks in homes across the United Kingdom. That is already the case for the private rented sector, and it should be for all housing associations, and indeed for the Housing Executive, which we have back home. However, enforcement measures do not go far enough. In the social rented sector, tenants will soon be protected. However, clarity is needed about whether electrical safety checks will cover installations and appliances, and also whether landlords will be given statutory powers to undertake electrical safety checks. I look to the Minister for some direction on that.
In the owner-occupier sector, there are currently no electrical safety protections. That is concerning, given that owner-occupied housing is likely to have the most dated electrical wiring, and houses a greater proportion of the elderly population, who are more vulnerable to electrical safety risks. The fact is, our mobility decreases as we get older. If we are living in a house that may be outdated or, indeed, where it takes time to get up and down the stairs or time to get out of the house, then, when it comes to electrical safety, more action needs to be taken.
The issue is particularly concerning because the owner-occupier sector makes up the largest housing tenure, accounting for some 65% of all households in England. As a result, the majority of households have no statutory protections from electrical safety risks. Again, I ask the Minister: what can be done? I know he will be positive in his response, and I appreciate that in advance, but I need to have the assurance in Hansard that the Government will take on board the things we are outlining. In total, across England, that means that some 15 million households have no statutory protection from electrical safety risks. That is a concerning figure. Data from the London Fire Brigade found that a greater number of owner-occupiers had experienced a fire than social and private renters combined. Again, that indicates a greater onus to try to sort out owner-occupiers and give them some guidance over what can be done to ensure they are safe and in no danger.
Separately, while there are provisions for vulnerable customers to receive free gas safety checks, no analogous provisions exist for electrical safety checks. I suggest that it is time to put electrical safety checks on the same level as gas safety checks for the simple reason of the number of fires and the dangers that are caused. I believe this must all be taken into consideration.
Health and housing are and always have been linked. That is why this debate is important. If we are to move forward and improve the health of our nation—which, as my party’s health spokesperson, I am happy to promote—housing must be an integral part of that. I do not think we can divorce the two issues; they come intertwined, hand in hand, together. If one defines a person’s basic needs, the right to a healthy home is surely fundamental.
Healthy homes and buildings are not simply those where there is a lack of ill health; a healthy home should mean homes and buildings that maximise the occupants’ physical, mental and social wellbeing. In a nation where mental health, anxiety, covid and advancing diseases have all grown in number, the focus of future housing policy must now shift to health creation. That is why this is an important debate. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance. We must not look at ill health prevention alone. Ill health prevention must become part of the strategy.
Delivering healthy homes and places is vital to levelling up our communities, towns and cities. This must be integrated together. Health and Housing—the two Departments must work constructively together in a positive fashion. Healthy homes and buildings will make Britain healthier, save money and contribute to increased educational attainment and wealth creation.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to support the White Paper and the recommendations put forward by the APPG on healthy homes and buildings, and to place healthy housing at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I know that the Minister will have had a chance to look at the recommendations made back in 2018; they are as relevant today as they were then. Those recommendations show a strategy and a way forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North, and others contributing.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech. I could not agree more. The Departments for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and of Health and Social Care—health and home—need to work more closely together.
This debate is about an important issue that affects many of my constituents in Coventry North West. In my city, a recent study showed that high air pollution contributed to one in 18 deaths of people over 30 in 2019. That equates to more than 150 deaths in a single year. It is totally unacceptable. We know how damaging pollution is to children and their long-term health, but not enough is being done to improve air quality. The evidence is unambiguous. Those exposed to high levels of pollution are at a much greater risk of respiratory disease, learning disabilities and brain damage. It is inexcusable.
Despite that, homes are being built alongside the busy Tamworth Road in my constituency, with more families moving in every day. As lorries and cars block up the road at all times, children are forced to play in spaces where they are constantly inhaling toxins and fumes. The Government must set high standards, and set councils free to build social housing within communities on brownfield sites. It cannot be right that children with their entire lives ahead of them are constantly exposed to such dangerous chemicals.
Giving developers too much power means they often fail to establish the risk of developments, which can become incredibly dangerous for the safety of our young people. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was killed on Tamworth Road after a car struck her. Such tragic events are preventable. When building homes, the safety and health of our young children must be prioritised. Whether we use pavement barriers, bollards or slower speed limits, it is vital that we find ways to protect those who live alongside busy roads.
Tamworth Road is not the only part of my constituency with new homes that are exposed to high levels of pollution. A new development in Spon End will see 750 homes built next to an extremely busy dual carriageway. Those homes will be occupied by families from across my constituency. I will always fight to make sure that no child grows up with avoidable health problems. The Government and the developers know how dangerous this is, yet they are failing children on their watch. I urge the Government to legislate to bolster the chances of young children across the country. Every child deserves an equal chance in life. Inadequate housing is taking that chance away from them, and it needs to end.
To reduce the levels of pollution in our towns and cities, all new homes must be built as efficiently and sustainably as possible. In practice, that means electrical charging points built into homes to make it as easy as possible to have an electric car. Solar panels must be standard in all newly built homes. That is how we can increase air quality to make sure the next generation of young people do not develop the same ailments that plague so many across the country.
Although pollution is a serious risk, poor-quality homes are equally damaging to health. When I speak to medical professionals across my community, they tell me that the health impact of poor housing is clear. Children who live in damp and mouldy homes are more likely to develop or experience trigger symptoms of asthma and adult respiratory problems than children who live in homes without those issues. We know the solution: warm and dry homes improve general health outcomes, and reduce the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular and other health conditions.
The Government must legislate to make sure that developers are held responsible. The current planning free-for-all gives big developers too much power, and too often they do not know what type of housing is required in what parts of our towns and cities. Housing has a huge influence on the mental health and wellbeing of so many families in my constituency. They are made to live in crowded homes far outside their communities, with limited access to shops, GP surgeries and other facilities. It is no wonder that we have a mental health crisis.
The Government must empower local authorities and build sustainable homes to reduce generational health inequalities in a way that will have a real impact for decades to come. I hope that the Minister is able to comment on some of my points in his response.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this valuable debate on an area of importance to all our constituents, and one that too often flies under the radar. He speaks with compassion and experience about the link between health and housing. I also thank the other speakers this afternoon, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for their reasoned and insightful comments.
Whatever melodrama is happening outside, this issue matters to the people we represent. When it comes to the nation’s health, we know that prevention is unequivocally better than cure, in terms of the human cost and the toll on individuals, but also in terms of the sound management of public finances.
We see the impact of under-investment in social and primary care settings on our acute hospitals. We know that investment to tackle the scourges of public health, such as smoking and obesity, ultimately pays for itself in the long run, as well as helping people to live happier, healthier and longer lives. It should not be controversial to aspire to want that for our constituents. It is common sense, not nanny-statism, as some would have it. It is no different from other factors that impact public health and wellbeing, which are many, varied and not always immediately obvious, as we have heard today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West spoke eloquently and passionately, from her considerable experience in the public health field. We know that diseases such as cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease cause around 89% of deaths in the UK. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS concluded that:
“These conditions are also, to a significant extent, preventable and the costs, in human, social and economic terms, are largely avoidable.”
The World Health Organisation has made it clear that poverty is closely linked with these diseases. Vulnerable and socially disadvantaged people get sicker and die sooner than people of higher social positions. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly said, we saw that play out starkly with the covid-19 pandemic. We need to see action taken to close those health inequalities.
Risk factors associated with poverty and deprivation include tobacco use, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and the harmful use of alcohol. Economic and social conditions contribute significantly to levels of preventable ill health. The levels of health inequality in the UK were already too great but, shamefully, they are just getting worse. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2018 to 2020, males living in the most deprived areas were living almost 10 years less than males living in the least deprived areas, with the gap at around eight years for females. Both sexes have seen statistically significant increases in inequality and life expectancy at birth since 2015 to 2017.
This is not necessarily about regions, or differences from one end of the country to the other. In my constituency of Luton North, we see the difference in life expectancy from one end of the town to the other, and that is to say nothing of the consequences of poverty and deprivation for mental health. Being deprived is not just about a lack of money. It is a lack of quality of life. It is community insecurity and a lack of resources overall, whether that is about exposure to stressor such as violence and crime, or a lack of public green space.
Public Health England has stated that:
“Insecure, poor quality and overcrowded houses cause stress, anxiety and depression, and exacerbates existing mental health conditions. 19% of adults living in poor quality housing in England have poor mental health outcomes.”
I feel that figure might be a gross under-representation. We also know that the research shows that people with a mental health problem are much more likely to have preventable physical health conditions as well.
What can be done? It would be disingenuous of me to stand here and say that poor mental and physical public health could be remedied by action on housing alone, but it is a key part of the puzzle of reducing the UK’s entrenched geographic, ethnic and demographic inequalities. That being said, there are things that the Government can and should do now, which have the potential to have a rapid and significant impact on ending the creation of unhealthy homes.
In the longer term, we need to overhaul the complex, fragmented system that allows new homes and places to be built that do not guarantee that all new homes provide for residents’ basic human needs, such as access to green space and local services, and clean air. We need developments that are guided by communities, with input from public health professionals on design, and proper infrastructure to support them, whether that is about encouraging active travel, access to green space, public leisure facilities or even allotments and communal vegetable gardens—although do not let me anywhere near those, because I am not green-fingered.
We need to do much better in setting standards for developments across the country and looking at methods for how they can be delivered. Research by Public Health England in 2017 clearly demonstrated the relationship between the built environment and health and the positive impact provision of these basic amenities can have.
A matter of more immediate concern is the liberalisation of permitted development rights by the Government in 2013, which has had a significant detrimental effect on the quality of dwellings produced as a result. Ministers both past and present have claimed—and future ones possibly will—that liberalisation of planning and permitted development rights removes unnecessary impediments to development. However, the evidence overwhelming shows that the impact of extending permitted development rights to convert office, commercial and industrial units into supposedly residential spaces—although I think very few of them could be described as such—is negative.
We have seen a huge increase in poor-quality housing that lacks space and natural light, and there are accompanying implications for public health and wellbeing as a result. The Government’s own research has shown that schemes created through permitted development projects are far less likely to meet national space standards and far more likely to have reduced access to natural daylight and sunlight. Space and daylight are the very basics. The former Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s housing and safety rating system states that
“lack of space has been linked to psychological distress and various mental disorders”
and problems such as
“accidents and spread of contagious disease.”
Some residential conversions are as small as 13 square metres, which is a third of the minimum space standard recommended by Government. Terminus House in Harlow, a former office block converted into hundreds of dwellings, was described as a “human warehouse”. That sounds like something from the Victorian era, not 2022. The Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s final report also concluded that:
“In some instances, we have inadvertently permissioned future slums.”
The 2018 Raynsford review of planning also concluded in a reference to the liberalisation of permitted development rights that:
“Government policy has led directly to the creation of slum housing. Such slums will require immense public investment, either to refurbish them to a proper standard or to demolish them. Morally, economically and environmentally it is a failed policy.”
That is a damning indictment of this policy and the Government’s approach to housing. In the light of all we have heard in this debate and the examples I have outlined from reports commissioned by the Government themselves, I would be particularly keen to hear from the Minister what possible justification there is for retaining these liberalised permitted development rights in their current form.
Reducing socioeconomic and health disparities in this country cannot happen without serious consideration of the role of housing and planning in creating buildings and communities that promote healthy lifestyles. We owe it to communities up and down this country to make positive changes a reality. They will not be achieved by the proposed deregulation in planning in investment zones. We have seen from the experience of permitted developments that further liberalisation is a cowboy developers’ charter for poor-quality, profit-maximising estates. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we will approach the issue of promoting health and wellbeing in new developments in these zones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and pay tribute to his tireless work and that of the healthy homes and buildings APPG in improving the conditions of those living or working in poor-quality, unhealthy environments.
We can all agree that the past two years have brought into sharp focus just how integral our homes and communities are to our physical and mental wellbeing. It has underscored the imperative of the APPG’s mission to tackle poor-quality housing and our collective endeavour to ensure that everyone in our society lives somewhere decent, warm, safe and secure. That mission is only becoming more pertinent as winter fast approaches and as we act to help people struggling with the rising cost of living. I understand that the Healthy Homes Bill had its Second Reading in July, and today I hope to outline how the Government are already dealing with many of the issues highlighted in that Bill.
Before I turn to levelling up, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for making two excellent speeches. Both their contributions were fantastic. There was very little I would disagree with in either of their speeches. That demonstrates the broad consensus across this House for dealing with the challenges we face.
I want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to levelling up, which remains a key priority for the UK Government. We know that the UK’s economic challenges are hitting some places harder than others. As well as the immediate Government help that we need to therefore provide to those communities, we need to build places up to help them become stronger and more economically resilient. With that in mind, the Government have set out a UK-wide aim to boost our GDP growth.
We recognise that the UK economy is made up of many different local economies with different characteristics, opportunities and challenges. We therefore aim to achieve and sustain strong economic growth by unleashing the untapped potential of places around the UK. That does not mean we want to dampen down the success of London or the growth of the south-east. We want to grow the whole economy, focusing on every part of the country. We want to ensure that we support growing parts of the economy—for example, life sciences in the north-west of England, advanced manufacturing in the midlands, semiconductors in Wales, renewable energy in East Anglia and fintech in Northern Ireland.
It goes without saying that everybody deserves to live in a safe and secure home. As hon. Members know, the decent homes standard has been in place since 2001. It set the minimum standard of quality to be met for all dwellings provided by registered providers of social housing. The decent homes standard sets out four criteria for evaluating decency. It requires that homes are free of serious hazards, are in a reasonable state of repair, have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens and bathrooms, and have efficient heating and effective insulation to provide a minimum degree of thermal comfort.
The regulator of social housing requires that social rented homes are maintained by landlords to at least the quality set out in the decent homes standard. Good progress has been made on ensuring that social rented sector homes meet the standard, with non-decency in the sector at around 11% in 2020, although I acknowledge the regional disparities in those rates, which was highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford.
In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Department published the social housing Green Paper. During the consultation, we heard that the decent homes standard was no longer fully effective. That is why in the social housing White Paper we committed to review the decent homes standard to ensure that it works for residents and landlords. Part 1 of the DHS review concluded in September 2021 and established that there is a case for change. Further details on taking forward the review will be set out in due course.
The Government are equally committed to ensuring a fair deal for private renters. Over the past two years, we have introduced regulations that will make privately rented homes safer in respect of their electrical installations —again, a point focused on extensively and eloquently by the hon. Member for Strangford—and through the provision of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
We have also reviewed the housing health and safety rating system—the tool used to assess conditions in all homes. That will enable local authorities to take more effective, targeted enforcement when they discover health and safety hazards. Last week, our current Prime Minister re-committed to the ban on section 21 no-fault evictions to protect tenants. We are, of course, carefully considering the next steps to support the rental market.
Several hon. Members talked about the importance of energy efficiency and decarbonisation, including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) in his intervention. As I said, we will make sure that rented homes are warm and dry. To meet that aim, we will deliver our net zero target, requiring all of our housing stock to become more energy-efficient. My Department is working closely on that with colleagues from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Improving the energy performance of our buildings presents an opportunity to provide warm, well ventilated spaces and healthy environments in which people can live and work. That will avoid physical illnesses such as heart and lung conditions—again, issues that were spoken about passionately by the hon. Member for Coventry North West and the shadow Minister.
The journey to net zero buildings starts with better energy performance and improving the energy efficiency of homes and buildings. It is a no-regrets action. That is why we are committed to upgrading as many homes as possible to energy performance certificate band C by 2035, as a cost-effective, practical and affordable step. Building on this, we have committed to consider setting a long-term regulatory standard to improve social housing to EPC band C, and we will consult on this in 2023.
Improving the energy efficiency of homes is also the best long-term method of reducing energy costs for vulnerable households and those living in fuel poverty. Our target is to ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practicable achieve a minimum energy rating of band C by 2030. To this end, we are investing £12 billion in Help to Heat schemes to make people’s homes warmer and cheaper to heat. We will deliver upgrades to more than half a million homes in the coming years through our social housing decarbonisation fund, the home upgrade grant scheme and the energy company obligation scheme. To future proof buildings, the heat and building strategy also commits us to considering overheating risk and indoor air quality when developing future decarbonisation policies.
Further to this, from 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce at least 75% less CO2 emissions than those built to the 2013 standards. That represents a considerable improvement in energy efficiency standards for new homes. In December 2021, we introduced an uplift in energy efficiency standards that delivers a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions and provides a stepping stone to the future homes standard in 2025.
Looking towards health and safety, the Building Safety Act 2022 established a more stringent regulatory regime in design and construction, strengthening building regulations requirements and their oversight. The Act introduces a Building Safety Regulator, which will make buildings safer by enforcing a stringent new regulatory regime for high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings. The regulator will oversee the safety and performance of all buildings and increase the competence of those working across the built environment.
The Building Safety Regulator was established in shadow form in January 2020, and it is intended that the new regime will come fully into force in April 2024, with interim steps, such as requiring accountable people to register their buildings, coming in the meantime. Residents can be confident that their safety is a critical objective of the new regulator. The regime also introduces new oversight requirements during the build phase. This means that before proceeding to the next stage, the developer must satisfy the Building Safety Regulator that they have met the relevant requirements in the building regulations. Between these stages, the Building Safety Regulator can carry out on-site inspections or request information about the building work.
On planning, our policy and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Through reforming the planning system, we will champion how beautiful design can enhance health and wellbeing, and encourage sustainable development accompanied by infrastructure that communities will truly benefit from. Building more homes is a fundamental task for the Government and local leaders. The measures we are already delivering—for example, those set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—are a significant step in improving the way planning operates, but we want to go further in specific areas of potential through investment zones, for example, to deliver the attractive, well-designed new communities we all want to see.
Jim Shannon
I am pleased by the Minister’s comprehensive response; it is very helpful. I will ask two questions. I said in my speech that landlords need to be incentivised, if there is a methodology to make that happen, to improve their homes. I appreciate what will happen going forward, but we have so many homes in the United Kingdom—18.5 million—that need to be retrofitted. I am ever mindful that this issue crosses different Departments and may not be the direct responsibility of the Minister when it comes to skills and a national training scheme.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) could not be here today because he had to return to his constituency. He said to me the other day that those who are in construction are getting older, and as they get older we need a new group of young workers coming through who have the skills to retrofit. Those are two questions. I am not sure if they are the direct responsibility of the Minister, but I know that he will deliver them to the person who has that responsibility.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Member for that important point. It is not directly my responsibility, but it is the kind of thing that we must work to address collectively across Government.
In a former role, I was the Minister with responsibility for construction, and we looked at the contribution that modern methods of construction and off-site construction can deliver, both in speeding up the delivery of the extra new, nice affordable homes for families that we need, and in freeing up skilled labourers to retrofit the older housing stock and to do some of the other work that we need to be done, because skills are in short supply. It is therefore important that we have a solid skills strategy. That is something that my Department and Ministers in BEIS are particularly keen to look at and work together on to ensure that we have a consistent approach that helps to deliver what we both want to see in this area.
Turning to one of the final areas, design and placemaking, the Government seek to ensure that new homes and places are designed to support the health and wellbeing of residents and communities. The national planning policy framework, which local planning authorities must adhere to as a matter of law, is clear that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. Those should support healthy lifestyles, especially where that would address identified local health and wellbeing needs. That could be through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, local shops, and layouts that encourage walking and cycling.
The framework also refers to the nationally described space standard. That means that local councils have the option to set minimum space standards for new homes within their areas. The national model design code asks that local councils give consideration to the internal layouts within new homes, aiming to maximise access to natural daylight.
Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we are introducing a duty for all local councils to produce a design code at the spatial scale of their authority area. The measure will empower communities to have their say on what their area will look like through working with local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups to set clear design standards through design codes. We have also set up the Office for Place within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which will support councils and communities to turn their vision of what they like into local standards that all new developments should meet, helping to create beautiful, healthy, successful and enduring places.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and particularly the hon. Member for Strangford for securing today’s important debate. There is a huge amount of consensus from all parties on the need to address the issues that have been highlighted today. I speak not just for my Department but for the wider Government in reiterating our commitment to building the sustainable green homes and communities of the future. That is a vision that I know is shared by all.
Jim Shannon
I make these interventions in a constructive fashion, because I want to have the answers—I think we all do; that is why we are asking. So far, the Minister has done brilliantly. I understand that 75% of new homes are not thermally efficient. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, and say what steps will be taken to change that? The reason I ask the question is simply that it all links into the energy crisis, which has become a fact of life for all of us. I say that in a very constructive fashion. I am not trying to catch the Minister out—that is not my purpose. I would just like a wee bit of clarity on that matter.
Andrew Stephenson
I do not have the exact statistics to hand, but, as I said in my remarks, we are working on updating building regulations and standards. Putting energy efficiency at the heart of those standards is an important priority. This is something that my ministerial colleague in the Department leads on, but I will ensure that the hon. Member’s views are fed back to him and taken into account in our discussions.
We all realise that the challenges identified by the APPG are real, and they are priorities that the Government will address. I am keen to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues in the APPG and others across the House to address those challenges. Even if I am not in this role in a few weeks’ time, I am sure that my successor would be delighted to continue working with them. These are real challenges that are recognised across Government; I know that myself and my current ministerial colleagues are very keen to see them addressed.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Jim Shannon has 35 minutes to wind up the debate.
Jim Shannon
Do not tempt me, Mr Hollobone. I am very pleased to have heard excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) has a deep interest in the issue, and very kindly came along to support the debate. The hon. Member referred to children; that is an issue for us all. I am a grandfather now; my boys have grown up and we have the next generation coming through. I am conscious about what we are building for those children and the grandchildren who come after them. I know the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has a young child, so she will better understand what that means.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West said that no child should have a health problem and that every child needs an equal start in life. A society is judged by how it looks after the poor and the less well off. Those are the key issues of this debate. We have all grasped that. We understand from the Minister that there is a deep interest from Government in making that happen.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) referred to insulation and upgrading homes. It is retrofitting homes that do not have the insulation that a new home would have—that is the key issue. We have to have a programme of not only new homes coming in but older homes being upgraded.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North, gave a very knowledgeable, factual and evidence-based contribution that I thought was very helpful. She referred to respiratory health problems that are preventable; if someone has a good house it reduces the risk of those. That is what we are aiming for. We are trying to reach the stage where those problems do not occur, because we have taken the precautions and preventive measures beforehand.
The hon. Member for Luton North referred to preventable health issues and life expectancy. I thought it was interesting that she referred to her own constituency, where in one town there can be people in one set of houses who have respiratory issues and health problems, and people in a different set of houses who do not. “A Tale of Two Cities” came to mind. The hon. Member referred to communities helped by the council. She said she was not green fingered; I cannot say I am, but I can usually turn my hand to anything. I live on a farm, so maybe it is more of a factor for me. She also referred to the lack of space and the distress, and the impact that has on children and families as a whole.
I am pleased that the Minister gave such a substantial response, for which I thank him greatly. I think every one of us will be encouraged by his knowledgeable responses to the questions we asked about the direction in which the Government are going. He said that the decent homes standard would be reviewed and talked about change, but what is the timescale for that change? Whenever I take things forward on behalf of constituents, I always ask the Department to give me a timescale. I hope that the Minister or whoever it may be—I hope he will still be there—will be able to come back to us on that.
On a fair deal for private renters, the Minister referred to the rating system to target enforcement. That is really good in the context of those who, for whatever reason, decline or respond slower than they should. He talked about people being “warm, safe and secure”. If we had to pick three words to sum up this debate and the targets we are all trying to achieve, they would be warm, safe and secure. He also referred to net zero and better energy efficiency, which are all things we would like to see.
With that conclusion, I thank all who have participated. We very much appreciate the opportunity of today’s debate and the statements that have been made, and we will follow that up through the APPG. As always, I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the way you chair meetings. We do not often say it, but we appreciate what you do. We also thank your Hansard staff—well, not your Hansard staff but our Hansard staff—for their contribution and those in the APPG who are here in the Gallery for their contributions and for supporting us in securing this debate. It did not last as long as we perhaps thought it might, but there are so many other things happening—I do not know whether people follow it, but I saw a wee PARLYapp message that said: “Jim Shannon for PM”. Well, I don’t think so, but there we are.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of homes and buildings in levelling up health and wellbeing.
FIFA World Cup 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK’s plans and preparation for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
The World cup is the biggest of global events and it will take place in just a few weeks’ time, so I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate and for recognising its importance and status in terms of both international relations and supporting our fans from England and Wales who choose to attend the World cup. I hope to answer any questions and concerns that any fans may have. It is an extremely busy day here in Parliament. Normally this debate might well have been held in the main Chamber, but of course recent restrictions on parliamentary time have made that more difficult, so as I say, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the importance and timeliness of this debate, and for scheduling it here in Westminster Hall.
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and remind colleagues that I have the privilege of being the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar.
The fact that two UK nations will compete in a global event is a cause for great celebration by the whole country. This is the first time since 1958 that Wales has qualified for the World cup finals. We have been waiting 68 years for this occasion and I cannot overstate the enthusiasm with which Welsh fans are looking forward to the tournament. It was with regret that in the last qualifying game we had to knock out Ukraine, even though we felt the world supporting Ukraine in that contest. Ukraine had already beaten another home nation, Scotland. It would have been great if all four home nations had been at the World cup finals. We look forward to the next tournament in four years’ time and hope they all qualify. However, before we do that, let us try to ensure that we play our full part in securing the success of this tournament.
In Wales, we have 68 years’ worth of built-up passion. Our time has come and I would say that Qatar’s time has come, too. We are two small nations punching well above our weight in our respective fields of expertise. The Minister here today, the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories, represents a border constituency, so he will fully understand where my loyalties lie. Whereas we agree on almost everything else, this is one area where we will definitely differ. I look forward to Wales’s victory on 18 December, and who knows? It is not impossible that England may well join Wales in the final.
This tournament is also noteworthy because it is the first World cup to be held in a Muslim state. The significance of that should not be underestimated. Sport has the capacity to bring people together, to share and to help us all to better understand nations and cultures, to challenge perceptions and to bring about positive change for all stakeholders. It was Nelson Mandela who said:
“Sport has the power to change the world.”
This is a World cup for the whole of the middle east. It is an opportunity for nations to come together and for cultures to share each other’s successes. Many fans will stay in nations that neighbour Qatar, meaning that World cup fever will extend well beyond Qatar. The FIFA Arab cup last year was a great success and influencer, and an excellent precursor to this year’s tournament.
The state of Qatar and the United Kingdom have a strategic relationship that goes back over centuries covering a range of policy areas. It was a privilege to attend the opening of the South Hook terminal in Pembrokeshire in 2009, when His Highness the Father Emir of Qatar and our late Queen opened Britain’s first liquefied natural gas terminal. This terminal now has the capacity to supply 25% of the UK’s gas needs. Some might say, “What great foresight those planners had!”
More recently, demonstrating a further deepening of relations, the annual Qatar-UK strategic dialogue has been central to our partnership. The last one was held in May, when further commitments were made on energy, education, regional security, humanitarian and development co-operation, science and innovation, trade and investment, and so much more. The breadth of the subjects under consideration demonstrates the strength of our relationship and how important each nation is to the other.
I want to use this opportunity to put on record and pay tribute to the support Qatar gave the UK and other nations in evacuating Afghan refugees just over 12 months ago, which to my mind has not been recognised as much as it should. Qatar’s support was of significant strategic importance to so many nations around the world seeking to support Afghan refugees.
The communiqué to the dialogue highlights that the World cup also played a part in those discussions. UK military capabilities are providing support on security and counter-terrorism and against any malign activity. In August, it was good to hear the Qatar ambassador to the UK announce that it will be British Typhoons, flown by UK and Qatar pilots, that will be ready to respond to any threat to the tournament from the skies.
Of course, as with any major event of this type, there is rightly considerable press interest in a range of challenges, particularly as so many people from so many cultures will come together in this global celebration. Everything from travel and accommodation through to treatment of fans, human rights, policing, LGBTQ+ issues and alcohol consumption is being questioned.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I declare my own entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Obviously, concerns about attitudes towards LGBT+ issues in Qatar have been raised. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that holding the World cup in Qatar, thereby bringing together many people from around the world, from different cultures and different backgrounds, is actually an opportunity to move forward issues and attitudes there? Does he agree that many of the people who have voiced opinions on this issue should also focus their energies on the handling of LGBT issues in professional football in the UK? The number of footballers who are out is relatively small compared with the wider population. It is quite clear that there is still a major issue with homophobia in professional football in the UK. Rather than simply point out issues that might arise in other countries, we still need to focus on issues at home.
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend makes some extremely important points and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It goes back to comments I made earlier. I touched on what Nelson Mandela said—that sport can change the world—but I also highlighted, as my right hon. Friend underlined, the importance of bringing together cultures to better understand, influence and progress all stakeholders, so that that greater understanding and clarity move the agenda forward so that each nation respects, sees and supports human rights.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and I recognise the part he is playing. He rightly makes an important point about UK sport and UK football in particular. It is alarming that so few players have come out, which leading football commentators have commented on recently. It would be helpful to create momentum in the UK that would lead to the recognition and understanding of the fantastic diversity that people who actively participate in sport share and enjoy.
The APPG has taken these issues very seriously, as you would rightly expect, Mr Hollobone, and as my right hon. Friend, who is deputy chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, will recognise. We have organised and participated in a series of meetings and engagements with relevant and interested parties. I pay tribute to His Excellency Fahad bin Mohammed Al-Attiyah, Qatar’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, and his team for their open approach in seeking to answer the questions and concerns that we have raised. Whenever reports appear, the matters are raised with the ambassador and his political team—in a positive spirit, I underline. Our dialogue always continues so that we can better understand and influence each other’s thinking and background understanding, and develop a way forward.
In March, the all-party parliamentary group hosted a meeting in Parliament with His Excellency Hassan Al Thawadi—the secretary general of the supreme committee for delivery and legacy, which is responsible for bringing the World cup together—and the ambassador to the United Kingdom. Some 53 people attended. Members from all parties and both Houses, asked the most searching questions about some of the subjects that have been mentioned so far.
In May, the all-party parliamentary group on football, chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), hosted a meeting with the independent body FIFA Ethics and Regulations Watch. The group’s report on human rights, including LGBTQ+ and workers’ rights, was interrogated similarly by colleagues. In June, the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar and the all-party parliamentary group for sport, modern slavery and human rights held a joint session with the UN- sponsored International Labour Organisation. Its evidence, gathered from 2017 up to the present, was scrutinised in detail, and changes and progress since 2017 on those subjects that I have underlined was recognised.
Each of those sessions offered different perspectives and evidence, and reassured colleagues on many of the issues that have been raised. The International Labour Organisation in particular, with its wider remit, commented that Qatar is a major reforming nation within the region. That should be recognised as we have a constructive dialogue about other changes that we would like to see in the region, and about how the region would seek to influence the UK in terms of its understanding. I am aware of further speculation in the press and media, and look to the Minister and the Qatar authorities to offer further information and clarity on some of the issues that have been raised. Hosting an event such as the World cup is a fantastic privilege and it brings with it global attention. With that come further demands from the public and commentators alike.
On specific operational matters, it is good to see that the authorities have given reassurances that anyone with a ticket will have the right to accommodation. That is welcome, but fans seek further information on costs and available options. Many will travel with organised tour groups, and some from neighbouring countries, which will ensure that this is a World cup for the region. Fans will travel on shuttle flights between those nations. That will provide an additional complexity, but is a great way of bringing the region together to celebrate the hosting of the games. Cultural diversity in the region is also a relevant factor on which we must advise visiting fans.
Any movement into Qatar will require a negative covid test. Because of movement within the region during the group stages in particular, that could be a significant challenge for the host nation, wherever fans are staying. Further clarity on that would be helpful, because the host nation will face additional pressures in ensuring that fans can travel easily and freely within the restrictions that covid demands.
Alcohol is an interesting dimension of any tournament, and the World cup is no different. It will be even more complicated in a nation where the consumption of alcohol is more restricted than in many other countries. We are advised that supporters will be encouraged to visit the fan zones if they wish to consume alcohol. The policing and management of that will require a delicate balance. This is a challenge for whichever nation hosts such a major tournament, but police authorities in the western world are obviously more experienced in managing this type of situation. Any information from the Minister on how that will be managed would be helpful. I will, with the rest of the all-party parliamentary group, continue my dialogue with the Qatari authorities to bring better understanding, but the Government will of course have a distinct role in communicating and sharing the UK’s experience of managing the challenges that come naturally with the organisation of any such large event.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that, as well as alcohol, mental health issues are taken into consideration? When large groups of people travel anywhere, some of those individuals will have mental health issues, so the ability to understand and provide adequate support, should it be needed, is important. Sport is fantastic for both physical and mental well- being, but some individuals who have mental health difficulties will need support. There has for a long time been stigma around mental health issues in the UK, but I think understanding of them is progressing right across the world, including in Qatar, and we would like to know a bit more about the types of support that may be provided.
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for raising those questions, which I know she has raised with the Qatari authorities, among others. It is also fair to say that the UK’s approach to and understanding of mental health has progressed significantly in recent times. I remember from a debate in the main Chamber that there was once an old rule whereby any parliamentary colleague with a mental health challenge was effectively debarred from contributing to debates. That highlights how the UK has progressed in our time—although that rule could theoretically still exist in statute.
As we have already said, given our different cultures, there will be different pressures on different travelling fans, and perhaps, if a team is knocked out earlier than expected, on different supporting groups. That may well be a challenge, but I do not mean to be flippant about the serious issues raised by the hon. Lady. Her points go along with the delicate balance in managing a difficult situation—be it because of alcohol consumption or personal challenges—and how best to share our experience, learn from the experiences of others, and ensure that those sorts of issues do not become dominant because of a lack of understanding by those running events. She is ahead of the curve by highlighting the importance of mental health support.
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend raises the issue of alcohol consumption. It is obviously very important that we understand how fan zones will work and how alcohol will be consumed, but another related issue is the cost of alcohol. There were some undertakings on a maximum price that could be charged for a pint of beer. Is the Minister—or, perhaps, my right hon. Friend—aware of that cost and whether it will be enforced? Although it pains me that Scotland are not participating in these World cup finals, I would not want Welsh and English friends to be deprived of a pint of beer because of cost alone.
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point—he may as well have read the next line of my speech. The cost of alcohol and the cost of accommodation really matter and will be a concern for the many people who will travel. The more information that can be provided, the more people will be able to plan, budget and recognise how long they can stay based on the relevant costs. He underlines his regret that Scotland will not be there, but I am confident that, when it comes to the home nations, all Scottish supporters will be supporting Wales at the World cup.
Policing is also relevant, particularly for public displays of affection, which I recognise are not part of the local culture. However, managing that will be a challenge, and it builds on the sensitivities I touched on earlier. It is worth underlining that managing the challenge is of particular concern to the LGBTQ+ community, as my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier. I believe that how delicate situations are policed needs considerable thought, experience and expertise.
The all-party parliamentary group was reassured by the Secretary-General at our meeting in March. He said that everyone was welcome and that it was their responsibility—meaning that of the authorities—to ensure that everyone feels safe. Any information on how that will be achieved will be welcome. From conversations with the ambassador and other officials, I am grateful for their reassurances. However, I underline that policing support will be provided from a number of nations. That is entirely normal for large-scale tournaments, but communicating the strategic aims and wishes to officers on the ground will also be relevant. If an officer on the ground comes from a different culture but has not fully understood the strategic decisions taken to be sensitive and supportive and manage the issues around alcohol, mental health challenges and the real concerns of the LGBTQ+ community, the response will take a lot of skilled action. It would be helpful to know if the UK has provided any support and intelligence to help Qatar achieve the great success that it wants.
From the start, Qatar has opened up its plans to so many nations, and the UK has played a significant part in that planning, from architecture to supporting policing, counter-terrorism and construction. We all want to see this being a great success and not only on the pitch, as I am sure it will be when highlighting the potential of an England-Wales final. This really matters to the region and the best influence it can have there is to celebrate different cultures, recognise diversity and move understanding in all quarters in a positive direction.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I wish to thank the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for securing this very important debate. I know that people in Enfield, Southgate and across the country are looking forward to next month’s World cup and I am no different. I will be cheering on England and hoping that Wales do well too. I live in hope that the tournament is as successful—if not more—for the three lions as in 2018, when we reached the semi-finals and the Southgate tube station in my constituency was temporarily renamed to pay tribute to Gareth Southgate. I will be the first to lobby Transport for London for the same treatment if we bring football home in December.
Of course, this is no ordinary tournament. It cannot be business as usual for the UK Government as we prepare for the tournament next month. We cannot avert our eyes from the problems in Qatar and the controversies surrounding its bid to host the 2022 World cup. On this side of the House, we will not be attending the tournament in person. I have received invitations, as I know other colleagues have, but to be clear, we will watch the World cup but will not be going. Dozens of construction workers have been killed putting this tournament on, and it is our view that we would be doing them a huge disservice if we turned a blind eye and did not use the World cup to campaign for stronger workers’ rights internationally, especially for migrant workers.
The eyes of the world will be firmly fixed on Qatar over the next few months and that provides us all with an opportunity to shine a light on the situation in the country and across the region. It is right that Qatar has faced intense criticism from human rights groups, international trade unions and labour organisations over the treatment of migrant workers. The Guardian newspaper reported in 2021 that 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka had died in Qatar since 2010. The International Labour Organisation has said that 50 workers died and 500 were severely injured during 2020. There are also serious concerns about the kafala system, which requires workers to have the permission of their employers to change jobs, leave the country and renew residency permits allowing them to work and live in Qatar. By its nature, it gives employers substantial power and clearly leads to the exploitation of workers.
There are other issues surrounding delayed or reduced salaries, which put workers at risk of forced labour. There are barriers to obtaining justice for abuses, and the prohibition of migrant workers from trade unions. However, it is true that Qatar has made progress and we welcome the improvements that have been made on workers’ rights, including steps to dismantle the kafala system in 2020 with the introduction of new labour laws, meaning migrant workers no longer need their employer’s permission before changing jobs.
In 2021, Qatar became the first country in the Gulf to implement a minimum wage for workers, regardless of nationality or occupation. Reforms have also ensured protection from heat stress, and there have been efforts to enable the right to organise and discuss grievances with employers, but we remain concerned about the implementation of those reforms. Human rights organisations are still worried about the imbalance between employers and workers in Qatar, with reports that many migrant workers still fear lodging complaints.
Although steps have been taken to dismantle the kafala system, workers continue to face challenges in changing jobs, with 100,000 requests to change jobs between October 2020 and October 2021 rejected. It is clear that while progress has been made, the work cannot stop here. Indeed, as the tournament nears and there is less construction work, the wellbeing of workers in other areas of the economy is also of concern, including the hospitality and service industries, such as those working in hotels, security workers, cleaners, drivers and cooks.
More widely, we know that migrant workers have faced exploitation in Qatar, and there is real fear that the situation will worsen significantly as the world and the World cup move on. Progress cannot stop when the spotlight of the World cup ends in December. Next month’s World cup means that the LGBTQ+ fans in my constituency and across England and Wales face the grim prospect of putting up with the tournament being played in a country where their sexuality is criminalised.
David Mundell
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not agree with me that there are serious issues with professional football here in the United Kingdom in respect of accepting people like me from the LGBT+ community? There are many issues to be dealt with in football more widely, rather than simply just the situation in Qatar.
Bambos Charalambous
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are issues within our own game with footballers coming out as gay or LGBTQ+. That is an issue for sport across the UK and beyond. However, the point I am making is about supporters and the experience that they might have in Qatar, where it is a criminal offence to be gay. There are nuances in that, but I take the point and we need to do a lot more with the UK game to make sure that professional footballers and other sportsmen and women feel confident and able to come out.
On sexuality being criminalised, it is not fair and it is not right. Football is for everyone and fans should not fear that they cannot support their team freely and be who they are. We should show pride in making that point at the World cup. As previously, it will be our footballers leading from the front. In Qatar they face a tournament underscored by human rights. It is great that England and Wales, alongside the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Switzerland will join together and support the OneLove campaign during the World cup, symbolised by a distinctive OneLove armband worn by the team captains during the tournament.
For LGBTQ+ fans, the Foreign Office must continue to engage with Qatari officials to ensure that their safety is of paramount importance and that there are clear reassurances that it is safe for LGBTQ+ fans to visit the World cup. Unfortunately, I know that the majority of England and Wales LGBTQ+ fans will simply stay away from the tournament due to serious concerns about their safety.
More widely, it is vital that the UK continues to push for human rights to be upheld for all citizens, irrespective of their gender, sexuality, religion or other belief. That is not just an issue in Qatar; it is an issue across the region and it is important that we continue to raise concerns where possible. Standing up for human rights should be a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy. The UK and Qatar continue to enjoy a longstanding and productive relationship in defence, gas and other industries, as the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan eloquently described in his speech. We must use that relationship to ensure that difficult questions are asked and those important issues are always on the agenda.
I ask the Minister what efforts the UK has taken, and continues to take, to hold the Qatari Government to account following the deaths and ill treatment of migrant workers in Qatar? Will the Minister commit to ensure the progress that has been made in Qatar is not forgotten when the tournament ends in December? There must be a legacy of scrutiny from the World cup. Finally, on the issue of LGBTQ+ rights, will the Minister outline the support that has been provided for fans travelling to Qatar for the World cup? Will he ensure that the concerns of the LGBTQ+ fans are raised with his counterparts in Qatar?
Football has unique way of bringing people together. We saw that over the summer with the lionesses and the Euro championships in England. I am sure that we will see that again during the World cup in Qatar. Amid all the football that will come our way next month, we cannot pretend it is a typical tournament. We must continue to raise our concerns; they are the things that we cannot celebrate in Qatar.
The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for securing this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who I know is a keen football fan, for his contribution—I hope we have cause to put into practice his suggestion for Enfield, Southgate.
I start by doing something that I am sure we will all agree with, but we have not done yet, which is to pay tribute to Sir David Amess as we pass the first anniversary of his absolutely tragic death—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He was a corridor friend of mine for a long period as neighbours, and a friend throughout my parliamentary career; I absolutely cherish his memory—I know everyone in this Chamber who knew him does too. I also cherish the tireless dedication that he showed to his constituents and his country. He was a passionate advocate for UK-Qatar relations. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, and the entire APPG, carry on his ethos. I thank them for pressing the issues constructively, but not unsparingly, with an ally. These are very important matters.
We have covered a gamut of matters, and I am going to talk about all of them. In the two contributions we have had so far we have had the question of the treatment of LGBT+ people, as well as the question of mental health, raised by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). There have been issues raised about the price of alcohol, public displays of affection and the level of UK support.
David Mundell
When I had the opportunity to travel to Qatar with Sir David Amess, he was at the forefront of raising those issues. The points that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) has made about the Guardian article and the concerns about the LGBT+ people—Sir David was raising those issues at the highest level. There was no holding back; he wanted to be a critical friend because we want Qatar to move forward on those issues, not sweep them under the carpet.
Jesse Norman
That is exactly right. It was very much in his nature to be warm and friendly, but also to tell people hard messages that they did not necessarily want to hear—albeit in his extremely engaging way.
This debate is timely for two reasons, and it demonstrates the cross-party interest there is in the forthcoming World cup. In the Foreign Office, our lead Minister for the middle east is Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. I am acting as his proxy, but it is a great pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the Government and pick up all of the points that have been raised.
Of course, our priority is the safety and security of all British nationals who will be travelling to the tournament. I weep that the Scots are not involved and I am very sad that the Northern Irish are not involved, but I am thrilled and delighted that the Welsh are after 68 years. What a moment; it is absolutely fantastic. That safety and security emphasis includes, of course, working closely with the Qatari authorities that are ultimately responsible for that, and for ensuring British nationals know what to expect, what is expected of them when they visit and how to get assistance. Of course, there is a lot of good practice already in place from previous major tournaments, particularly Russia in 2018. That includes the importance of close co-operation with partners, such as the football associations and supporters’ representatives.
Every event is unique, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan is right to say that this will be the first-ever World cup held in the middle east. It is also the first-ever hosted by a Muslim nation and the first to be largely city based—in what is our winter but a more temperate time for them—so the Government have adapted our plans accordingly.
There has been close engagement on security with Qatari authorities, as the House might imagine, on various aspects of the preparation—particularly in supporting the delivery of a safe and secure championship. The UK police are offering support and advice in relation to fans, and have travelled to Qatar to build relationships and share their professional experience and knowledge. Many Members will be aware that the UK has a lot of experience in football-related policing, and our police typically deploy to overseas tournaments for that reason. At the same time, the Ministry of Defence will be supporting Qatar with military capabilities in relation not just to the much-travelled and advertised joint Typhoon squadron but to counter-terrorism, even more relevantly, which remains a threat—particularly at an event of this magnitude and profile.
Consular preparations are going on, as one might expect. The UK Government recognise that aspects of such tournaments can pose problems for fans—we have had several mentioned already, such as public displays of affection—from local laws and customs to geography and travel requirements. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is therefore implementing a range of targeted communications to provide England and Wales fans with practical advice and keep problems to a minimum. There is a dedicated World cup section in the travel advice we offer for Qatar, and the Government advise anyone attending to read that and sign up for email alerts so they can stay on top of developments.
Hon. Friends and colleagues will be pleased to know that the UK Government have today announced their six top tips for travelling fans to follow, supported by both the England and Wales managers. At the same time, there has been close engagement with Qatar on topics relating to the fans themselves. The one that has been first and foremost in the comments of all those who have spoken is the issue of LGBT+ visitors. I reassure colleagues that Ministers and senior officials have raised those issues at all levels, and continue to do so. The authorities are quite clear that their commitment is that everybody is welcome, and that they will respect that, but on our side we need to continue to encourage and press for the equal treatment of all fans and respect for individual rights not just in words, but in the action and the specific context of the matches as they take place, so that anyone of any background can go out and enjoy themselves.
When it comes to consular assistance, the FCDO will be offering an enhanced consular presence in Qatar throughout the tournament, and British nationals will have a 24/7 capacity to call the FCDO if they need help or advice. Of course, there are appropriate parallel plans in place for the wider region, because the Government are aware that many fans hope to base themselves elsewhere and travel into Qatar for matchdays. That is an important further preparation.
In terms of the legacy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, the World cup has allowed the UK Government to engage across much wider bilateral areas in recent years—on trade and culture, but also rights. One would expect engagement not merely in the more historically relevant areas of trade and culture, but in the one that is so salient now, which is rights. Qatar is a close partner and we must use this opportunity to strengthen that bilateral relationship, to broaden it in the way that has been described, and to make it more enduring. Lots of British companies on the trade side have played a notable role in World cup preparations, including in relation to football stadiums and many other aspects of them, and NGOs have been collaborating on legacy and inclusion themes. Only last week, Street Child United successfully hosted the fourth street child world cup in Doha. There will likewise be opportunities during the event to showcase what the UK has to offer.
As I say, I am rooting at one remove—and, tragically, only after the three lions— for Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan can tell me whether “Ymlaen, Cymru!” is the correct Welsh for saying, “Come on, Wales!” But I can say that we will be pressing this on behalf of the nation as a whole, provided that the matches do not yield any kind of contest between England and Wales until the final.
Of course, the other thing that has been rightly mentioned is workers’ rights, which must continue to be an important part of the picture. As I think colleagues will know, the UK absolutely welcomes the concrete steps rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate hitherto, including the introduction of a non-discriminatory minimum wage. But the priority, as he rightly says, must be the implementation and enforcement of those reforms—not just when the attention of the world is on Qatar, but even once those workers move off the radar and in future years to come. He may be aware that the UK’s migration and modern slavery envoy visited earlier this month for a range of meetings to discuss precisely how the UK can partner with Qatar and the International Labour Organisation to support further progress in 2023 as part of the legacy of the World cup.
In conclusion, we are in regular dialogue with host authorities and continue to ramp up the plans that have been set out. I hope, and I know all colleagues will hope, that come 18 December we will celebrate a safe and successful World cup, with a home nation picking up that trophy.
Alun Cairns
I, too, pay tribute to hon. and right hon. Members for all their valued comments. It is extremely important to highlight and recognise the issues, and to look forward with optimism not only to the World cup, but to the legacy that it will leave. I will comment a bit more on the legacy in a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was absolutely right: “Ymlaen, Cymru!” could be “Come on, Wales!”, as he described it. It could be “Forward, Wales!” or “Go, Wales!”, but I do not care how we translate it, as long as it results in a victory. The Red Wall has had a major influence on the optimistic spirit in Wales and the pent-up passion that we have been holding all these years since the last time we attended a World cup.
I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, and there are a couple of points that I want to pick up on. Many commentators have mentioned the rights of migrant workers. I deliberately pointed to the ILO and its evidence, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), but I also encourage hon. and right hon. Members to look at the progress. That is not to say that we have arrived at a destination—nor has any other developed economy—because it is an ever-evolving situation.
There have been some press reports giving data and numbers that have not always been reconciled with an independent body, such as the ILO or FIFA Ethics and Regulations Watch. Therefore, to continue the positive momentum and an intelligent debate, it is always helpful to look at the data, rather than repeat historical data that may or may not be accurate because the evidence is not as obvious.
I encourage colleagues to participate actively in the APPG on Qatar so that we can continue to raise these issues in the positive spirit that both the Minister and I have mentioned. Because of our deep relationship, we can ask tough questions and receive strong answers, and that works in a positive way.
Finally, let me reflect on the comments on legacy. On sustainability, this World cup will be a model for international tournaments on such a scale. The sustainability efforts within it will set the new standard. Qatar has the resources, and has made them available, to make it the greenest tournament possible. There are also the stadiums, to which the UK will have contributed through various architectural design and construction efforts. My right hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the legacy that they will leave, as the stadiums can be rebuilt in some developing nations, and commitments have been made towards supporting football in developing nations as well. That draws attention to the ongoing momentum that sport can bring to the whole region within the middle east.
Qatar has been recognised by the ILO as having made some of the most significant steps and progress in some of the areas that it has been called up on. I hope that the momentum will continue in that way, as well as in developing the sport in Wales, the rest of the UK, the developing nations and everywhere else that values what sport can bring. That brings us back to where I started: Nelson Mandela’s quote that sport can change the world. Let us ensure that the World cup plays its part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK’s plans and preparation for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
Written Statements
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Correction to a Written Parliamentary Answer
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
On 23 June 2020, the Attorney General’s Office answered a written parliamentary question tabled by Richard Holden MP. The written answer included incorrect figures relating to the number of overall appeals, and successful appeals that the Department has made against unduly lenient sentences. Year Appeals the Government has made against sentences on the basis of undue leniency Successful appeals the Government has made against sentences on the basis of undue 2000 31 Data unavailable 2001 147 [160] 90 2002 148 [135] 94 [92] 2003 96 78 [77] 2004 105 [136] 66 [85] 2005 108 67 2006 144 104 2007 76 [106] 53 [75] 2008 59 [71] 46 [51] 2009 84 [108] 58 [71] 2010 77 [78] 60 2011 117 94 2012 82 62 2013 70 61 2014 122 106 2015 136 102 2016 180 [190] 130 [141] 2017 173 137 2018 140 99 2019 97 [93] 63 [65]
The question was:
“To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) appeals and (b) successful appeals the Government has made against sentences on the basis of undue leniency, in each of the last 20 years.” [61628]
The Departmental answer was:
The statistics from 2000 are provided below. It should be noted that Attorney General’s Office does not hold accurate data prior to 2001 and we are not in possession of the data indicating the number of successful appeals for the year 2000”.
However, checks on our data have revealed that some minor corrections need to be made. These corrections are included in square brackets below.
Through this ministerial statement I am correcting this error, which arose out of the method used to collate the data. The Department now has more robust systems for collating and quality assuring the unduly lenient sentence data it publishes.
[HCWS331]
Subsidy Control Regime
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I am announcing today, 20 October 2022, that the Government intend to bring the Subsidy Control Act fully into force on 4 January 2023.
The Act provides the framework for a new, United Kingdom-wide subsidy control regime. This regime will enable public authorities, including devolved Administrations and local authorities, to deliver subsidies that are tailored to local needs. This Government are determined to seize the opportunities arising from Brexit. We are no longer bound by the EU’s bureaucratic and prescriptive state aid regime.
The Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) Regulations 2022, which I have laid in draft before both Houses today, will define which kinds of subsidies and schemes should be referred to the new subsidy advice unit, or SAU, within the Competition and Markets Authority. Additional scrutiny of the public authority’s assessment is sensible, given that these will typically be the types of subsidies that have the greater potential to lead to negative effects on domestic competition and investment and/or international trade and investment.
The Government have consulted, earlier this year, on their proposed approach to subsidies and schemes of interest and of particular interest, and on the terms of the draft statutory guidance. The draft regulations that have been laid today, and the forthcoming guidance, are the fruit of careful reflection on consultation responses, the large majority of which were offered in an open and constructive spirit. I thank all respondents to both consultations.
Further regulations will also be laid during the autumn. These will concern the Competition and Markets Authority’s information-gathering powers in support of its subsidy control functions; the information requirements that public authorities must publish on our publicly available subsidy transparency database; and the gross cash equivalent rules for valuing subsidies in a consistent and comparable way, no matter in which form they are given.
The Government also intend that all four statutory instruments will be brought into force ready for the new regime to operate from 4 January.
More broadly, I wish to highlight some of the other positive features of the subsidy control regime that the Act establishes, and the work my officials are doing to implement it.
During the passage of the Act, Ministers were clear that improvements would be made to the functionality of the transparency database. Improvements have already been made, and a further programme of enhancements will be completed before the Act comes into force, to make the database even more transparent and easier for public authorities to use.
The Government are drawing up clear statutory guidance to expand upon and explain the intention behind the provisions included in the Act, among other supplementary guides and educational aides. This will help public authorities to understand the obligations placed on them by the new legislation and design better and less distortive subsidies.
The Government will also hold a series of in-person and online events in November to inform public authorities of the requirements under the new regime.
The Government will make three streamlined routes for when the Subsidy Control Act fully enters into force. These are subsidy schemes that will be open to all public authorities, who can use them to give certain categories of subsidies even more quickly and easily, and without the need to assess them against the subsidy control regime’s principles.
Next year, 2023, will mark the beginning of a new era for subsidy control in the United Kingdom. The Subsidy Control Act strikes a sensible balance between allowing public authorities greater freedom to grant subsidies for useful social and economic purposes, while protecting the interests of taxpayers by means of proportionate rules and reviews.
[HCWS333]
Ajax: Armoured Cavalry Programme
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alec Shelbrooke)
I wish to provide an update on the Ajax equipment project that is part of the armoured cavalry programme.
My first concern is the safety of our personnel, which has been at the forefront of the work that has been ongoing over the summer. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, following agreement from the Ajax Safety Panel, this work has led to resuming the user validation trials paused earlier this year and since 10 October there have been eight days of trials.
Successful completion of user validation trials will allow progression toward reliability growth trials.
I will continue to ensure that the House is kept updated on these matters.
[HCWS332]
Trust Capacity Funding
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Jonathan Gullis)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the School and College System (Baroness Barran), has made the following statement.
The Department is committing up to £86 million in trust capacity funding (TCAF) until March 2025, supporting the Government’s vision for every school to be part of a family of schools in strong academy trusts. TCAF helps trusts develop their capacity and take on underperforming schools, particularly in education investment areas. Today we have launched the second window of TCAF 22-23. The application window runs until 16 December with guidance and application form available on gov.uk. We will soon announce details of the next application window which will be looking particularly for projects which address our priorities for the 55 education investment areas which we plan to publish later this year.
[HCWS335]
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grant Shapps)
At midday today, the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was published. This concludes seven years of investigation into areas of institutional failings, across England and Wales, to properly protect and safeguard children in their care from child sexual abuse.
I would like to thank the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, and her whole team, for their dedicated service in carrying out this inquiry.
Above all, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the thousands of victims and survivors who have shown exceptional courage in coming forward to share their testimonies and experiences with the inquiry.
The report provides truly shocking insight on the unimaginable abuse suffered by children, and draws out stark failings by institutions, leaders, and professionals to protect them from harm.
The report makes recommendations that focus on greater accountability, increasing reporting of this crime, redress for victims, increased focus on bringing the perpetrators of these abhorrent acts to justice, and creating a stronger voice from Government on this issue.
We recognise that this is a watershed moment, and that it will take time to fully review the inquiry’s findings and recommendations. We will provide a comprehensive response in line with the inquiry’s deadline.
We are committed to working across Government, and closely with partners in law enforcement, local authorities, the care sector, the third sector, and industry, to continue supporting victims and survivors. We will work together to pursue and bring perpetrators to justice, and to safeguard children and vulnerable people.
I have today laid a copy of the inquiry’s report in Parliament and will provide a further statement to the House on this landmark report at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS336]
New Decade, New Approach: Delivery of Government Commitments
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act in the House of Lords, the Government committed to laying a written ministerial statement every six months setting out which of our commitments in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) we have delivered on to date. The first of these statements was published on 23 March 2022. This is the second statement.
The NDNA agreement facilitated the restoration of the devolved institutions in January 2020 after three years of hiatus. The Government remain deeply disappointed at the continued lack of a fully functioning Executive following the resignation of the First Minister in February and the Assembly election in May, and urges the parties to come together and form a Government in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government have taken action to support the people of Northern Ireland, for instance through the energy price guarantee and the £400 energy bill support scheme payment which will help consumers with their energy costs, as well as the energy bill relief scheme for businesses, the public sector and charity organisations.
However, the people of Northern Ireland deserve a stable and accountable Government that can act directly on their behalf through the challenging times ahead. The Government’s priority is to facilitate the restoration of the Executive as soon as possible, but if an Executive is not formed by 28 October, Ministers in Northern Ireland will lose office and I will come under a legal duty to call fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. In law, this must take place within 12 weeks. This action will not be taken lightly, but time is running out for the parties to come together, form an Executive and avoid this outcome.
In the meantime, the Government will continue to implement its commitments and deliver for people in Northern Ireland. To that end, since January 2020 the Government have:
published four reports on the use of the Petition of Concern mechanism, with the most recent report published on 20 January 2022;
passed the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act to implement the institutional reforms agreed in NDNA;
passed the Internal Market Act 2020;
held a meeting of the Board of Trade in Northern Ireland;
ensured that Northern Ireland can access the trade deals the UK is striking across the world;
invited representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive to all meetings of the UK-EU Joint and Specialised Committees;
changed the rules governing how the people of Northern Ireland bring their family members to the UK, enabling them to apply for immigration status on broadly the same terms as family members of Irish citizens;
appointed Danny Kinahan as the first Northern Ireland veterans commissioner in September 2020;
passed the Armed Forces Act, which further enshrines the armed forces covenant in law;
conducted a thorough review of the aftercare service, the purpose of which was to consider whether the remit of the service should be widened to cover all HM Forces veterans living in Northern Ireland with service-related injuries and conditions;
marked Northern Ireland’s centenary in 2021 with a £3 million programme of cultural and historical events, including the delivery of the shared history fund and schools planting project;
brought forward regulations that continue to ensure designated Union flag flying days remain in line with those observed in the rest of the UK;
recognised Ulster Scots as a national minority under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
announced £2 million in funding for NI Screen’s Irish language and Ulster Scots broadcast funds, which support a range of film, television and radio programming;
established a new hub—Erskine House—in the heart of Belfast, increasing the visibility and accessibility of UK Government Departments in Northern Ireland;
reviewed the findings of the renewable heat incentive inquiry report to consider its implications for the use of public money in Northern Ireland; and
continued to foster closer ties and better collaborative working across sectors such as tourism, sport and culture, including through the potential joint UK and Ireland bid to host the 2028 European championships.
The Government have provided a total financial package of £2 billion for New Decade, New Approach. This financial package includes a £1 billion Barnett-based investment guarantee for infrastructure investment and £1 billion in funding across key priorities as set out in the deal. Of the £1 billion in funding, over £750 million has been allocated towards such outcomes as:
bringing an end to the nurses’ pay dispute in January 2020;
putting the Northern Ireland Executive’s finances on a sustainable footing by securing additional funding for the Executive in the 2020-21 financial year;
the creation of a new Northern Ireland graduate entry medical school in Londonderry;
supporting the transformation of public services;
supporting low carbon transport in Northern Ireland, enabling the Department for Infrastructure to commit to ordering 100 low-carbon buses to be deployed in Belfast and Londonderry; and
addressing Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances through projects and programmes that tackle paramilitarism, promote greater integration in education, support economic prosperity, and support the Irish language and Ulster-Scots.
In addition, in the absence of Executive progress on the matter, the Government have continued to progress the New Decade, New Approach commitments relating to identity and language through the Identity and Language (NI) Bill. This will encourage and promote respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures and traditions. The Identity and Language Bill, as amended, provides for:
the creation of a series of national and cultural identity principles, and an office of identity and cultural expression to oversee them;
the creation of an Irish language commissioner;
the creation of a commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition;
a duty on the Northern Ireland Department of Education to encourage and facilitate the use and understanding of Ulster Scots;
the repeal of the Administration of Justice (Ireland) Act 1737; and
the establishment of a Castlereagh Foundation.
All provisions in the Bill will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to administer, support and fund.
[HCWS334]
Transport Update
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government are today introducing the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. This meets the Prime Minister’s commitment to introduce this Bill within her first 30 days of Parliament sitting and delivers on a commitment in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto.
The Bill paves the way for the introduction of minimum levels of service on transport services, like those already seen in other countries, including France and Spain. The Bill will ensure that specified transport services—which could include, for example, rail, tubes and buses—will not completely shut down when unions impose strikes. This Bill will balance the right to strike with ensuring commuters can get to their place of work and people can continue to make vital journeys to access education and healthcare during strikes.
The Bill sets out the legal framework for establishing minimum service levels. It will allow relevant employers and trade unions to negotiate and reach agreement between themselves on minimum service levels referred to as minimum service agreements (MSAs), provide for circumstances in which the MSA can be changed and include enforcement arrangements to ensure parties follow due process in their negotiations.
The Bill also provides for an independent determination process should employers and unions fail to reach agreement on an appropriate minimum service level after three months, whereby if an agreement has not been reached the Central Arbitration Committee will determine the minimum service level.
The Bill also includes a power for the Secretary of State to set interim minimum service levels by regulations which will apply where neither an MSA has been agreed nor an independent determination reached. These regulations will also be consulted upon and will need to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament before they are made. Under the Bill there will also have to be a minimum three-month gap between these regulations being made and their coming into force.
The specific details of how minimum service levels would apply to transport services will be set out in secondary legislation following appropriate consultation. A minimum service level would only be applied to an individual transport service once that secondary legislation has been agreed by Parliament.
The provisions of the Bill extend and apply to England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill’s provisions relate to the reserved matter of employment rights and duties and industrial relations, and the subject matter of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and do not engage the legislative consent process.
[HCWS337]
Bereavement Benefits
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Claire Coutinho)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (the Baroness Stedman-Scott) has made the following written statement.
We have today laid the draft Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2022. Copies of the draft Remedial Order and Explanatory Memorandum are available in the Journal Office and the Vote Office (Commons) and the Printed Paper Office (Lords). We have also laid the Government Response to representations made on proposals for a draft Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2021, including the eighth report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2021-22 (HC 594, HL 91). We would like to thank the Committee, and other Members, for their observations on the draft proposed Order.
[HCWS309]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
China: Security and Trade (IRDC Report)
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the International Relations and Defence Committee The UK and China’s security and trade relationship: A strategic void (1st Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 62).
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to present our report, The UK and China’s Security and Trade Relationship: A Strategic Void, to the Committee today. I thank members of the International Relations and Defence Committee and our staff, including our specialist adviser Dr Yuka Kobayashi, for all their hard work in producing this report.
The UK-China relationship is complex, of course. It has seen periods of both co-operation and confrontation. When David Cameron was Prime Minister, the focus on economic relations with China was characterised as a “golden era”, but tensions then rose rapidly as a consequence of increased concerns about matters such as security challenges, the imposition of the draconian Hong Kong national security law, and allegations of genocide in China’s Xinjiang province. Against that background, we launched our inquiry and published our report just over a year ago.
The central argument of our report is that the Government do not have a clear strategy on China, despite the shift in relations over the last few years. We found that the attempts made by coalition and Conservative Governments since 2010 to navigate complex interactions between trade, security and human rights had led to inconsistencies and uncertainties. We concluded that there was no clear sense of what the Government’s strategy was towards China, or indeed what values and interests they were trying to uphold in the UK-China relationship.
The Government claimed that they had set out their strategy in various speeches from time to time. We concluded that these did not provide clarity. In our view, the Government seemed to be
“using a policy of deliberate ambiguity to avoid making difficult decisions that uphold the UK’s values but might negatively affect economic relations.”
The committee therefore called upon the Government to produce and publish a “single, coherent China strategy” and a plan for how they would execute that strategy in the future.
The Government’s response did not confirm whether they would publish a written strategy on China. Instead, they referred us to the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. However, the IR simply alludes to the tension between balancing economic engagement with China with the need to uphold UK values and national security. It does not give any indication about how this tension will be resolved.
During this summer’s leadership contest, the Times reported that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, then the Foreign Secretary, would class China as a “threat” to national security for the first time. However, the reporting was light on details—it was not clear what classing China as a “threat” would mean in practice, for example—and no further announcements have yet been made on this matter since the Prime Minister took office. What further details can my noble friend the Minister supply about the Government’s plans in this area?
I note that the Government have pledged to update the integrated review, saying that the updated review
“will ensure we are investing in the strategic capabilities and alliances we need to stand firm against coercion from authoritarian powers like Russia and China.”
I welcome the idea of updating the IR, but rumours are going around that it will not appear until next May. In the current volatility of events, one suspects that it may be even further delayed. Will there be any consultation on the key issues before the report is published?
I turn now to five specific issues: Taiwan; supply resilience; human rights; Chinese influence on UK universities; and, finally, the implications of China’s stance on Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
Our report argued that any assessment of China’s threat to the UK should take into account both the probability and likely consequences of conflict in Taiwan. We argued that the UK’s interests would be directly threatened, and concluded that:
“The uncertainty over the future of Taiwan therefore represents a major risk to the UK.”
The Government’s response to this section of our report provided limited information. It merely stated that the Government
“support a peaceful resolution through constructive dialogue”,
and that
“the numerous Chinese military flights at the beginning of October”—
in 2021—
“near Taiwan were not conducive to peace and stability in the region.”
It was astonishing that there was not a single reference to Taiwan in the integrated review.
Last weekend, the five-yearly Chinese Communist Party congress opened in Beijing. It is expected to endorse an unprecedented third five-year term for Xi Jinping as party general secretary—the de facto President. On the very first day of that congress, he said:
“We insist on striving for the prospect of peaceful reunification with the greatest sincerity and best efforts, but we will never promise to give up the use of force and reserve the option to take all necessary measures.”
I understand the diplomatic sensitivities on this matter but would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister can provide an analysis of the UK’s assessment of risks and a potential response to further developments in Taiwan.
The committee also explored the issue of supply chain resilience and vulnerability in the context of the UK-China relationship. The passage of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 was a clear sign of the Government’s concerns in one area, but these vulnerabilities are much more widespread across the UK economy. We were particularly concerned about vulnerabilities exposed during the pandemic relating to the procurement of PPE and lateral flow tests. In subsequent correspondence, the Government confirmed that, as of 10 January this year, the total cost of lateral flow tests from China and procured by NHS Test and Trace or the UK Health and Security Agency was £5.8 billion.
Of course, it is important that the UK engages with China economically, and our report highlights a number of opportunities for UK businesses, particularly in the services sector. It is also vital to co-operate with China on global challenges, including public health and climate change—a subject on which my noble friend the Minister has particular expertise. This engagement with China should not, however, come at the cost of upholding the UK’s core values, including on human rights and labour protection—values which China does not share.
In April last year, a Motion was passed in the other place declaring that Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide. Our report stressed that the question of how to balance economic engagement with human rights must be front and centre of the Government’s strategy on China. We concluded that the Government cannot “sit on the fence” on this issue, and that they must not tilt the balance towards preserving economic relations at the expense of human rights.
I am pleased to say that the Government’s response indicated that they agree with the committee’s position in this area. In subsequent correspondence, the Government also confirmed that
“serious concerns about human rights violations in Xinjiang naturally inform our position towards China”.
I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give a practical example of how it informs our position What is the effect?
There has been increasing concern that British universities could be a target for technological espionage and that Chinese students in the UK could be put under pressure by the Chinese authorities. Clearly, the Government should seek to maintain the role and popularity of British higher education among Chinese students, but we recommended that the Government and the higher education sector should take steps to ensure that Chinese students can maintain freedom of research. The Government’s brief response to this recommendation did not, however, outline the steps that they intended to take. Moreover, when we raised this with them in subsequent correspondence, they referred us to the measures that they are taking through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, shortly to go through its next stage in this House. However, the relevance of that Bill to the specific issues facing Chinese students is not clear: the pressure they are facing comes from outside, from the Chinese Government, not from within the UK.
The Bill had its Second Reading on 28 June this year when several Peers raised specific concerns about China’s influence and pressure. When my noble friend Lord Howe wound up the debate for the Government, however, I could not find a single reference to China in his remarks. Can the Minister therefore provide clarity on the steps the Government are taking to protect Chinese students from political pressure from outside the UK and the role, if any, that is played by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill in providing that protection?
Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine dominates most of the immediate foreign policy of western leaders, which is of course wholly understandable. It is vital, however, that we do not divert our attention from the activities of the People’s Republic of China, which could be viewed as the biggest long-term threat to our economic and national security. For its part, China has refused to openly condemn Russia’s invasion. It has opposed economic sanctions on Russia. It has abstained or sided with Russia in UN votes on the war. The new NATO strategic concept document agreed earlier this year raised concerns about China’s “deepening strategic partnership” with Russia.
However, China’s support for Russia has not yet been full-throated. As far as we know, it has not provided Russia with significant military assistance and, at the recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, President Putin admitted publicly that China has “questions” and “concerns” about the war. How does China’s position on Russia and Ukraine inform the UK’s own position on China? I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s thinking in this regard.
Engaging with China will always be an enormous challenge, given its economic weight and its fundamental political differences from us. It would be unwise to think that there will be any softening of President Xi’s hard-line policies of competition with western democracies. It is essential for the UK to be aware and wary of the implications of that for our own security, trade and prosperity. The UK’s strategy for its relations with China needs more clarity and certainty than it has had until now. Trade-offs need to be confronted and ambiguities resolved. I hope that the Government will now provide more clarity and fill the strategic void that has beset the UK’s China policy over the last decade. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the chairman of the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Undoubtedly, one of the most difficult areas of UK foreign policy is how it approaches relations with China. China is such an important global player that to shirk defining how we relate to it would be a serious failure of international policy-making.
In criticising the Government’s failure to define a coherent strategy, the committee did not underestimate how difficult it is to produce one. Moreover, no strategic position can be set in stone. Rethinking and updating will regularly be required. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which happened since the committee wrote its report, is the most obvious example of change that needs to be taken into account. My first question to the Minister is this: what steps are the Government taking, either bilaterally or multilaterally, to engage with China on the threat to long-term global security of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? China probably has a unique potential to influence Russia. What assessment, if any, has been made of how to maximise this potential in the interests of peace?
My second question concerns the shocking human rights abuses against the Uighurs in Xinjiang province. Can the Minister give an up-to-date account of what is happening there now, including any recent developments in the work of the international community to condemn the policies of the Chinese Government? After all, Parliament has rightly claimed that what the Chinese Government have done in Xinjiang province are crimes against humanity. What progress is being made in getting the Chinese to withdraw the sanctions they have imposed on British parliamentarians and lawyers—including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is a member of the Select Committee—for criticising the Chinese authorities and using their right to freedom of speech? The Chinese argument that the international condemnation of the inhumane and repellent system of surveillance is unwarranted interference in China’s domestic agenda is clearly absurd.
I turn to some of the issues concerning our economic, trade and cultural relations with China. We cannot turn our back on engagement with a country with the second-largest economy in the world, which is likely to overtake the USA and become the largest within two decades. After all, China is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. As a member of the G20 and the UN Security Council, it is also a hugely important player in global security and the global economic order.
With respect to multilateral economic negotiations with China, the committee highlighted in its report the importance of World Trade Organization reform, where the role of China is crucial. It welcomed the Government’s intention to play a part in the WTO’s strengthening and reform, but regretted that it said so little about how it would do so. Can the Minister say what the Government have done so far and what their future intentions are, focusing on how they would support in this area our economic and strategic objectives with China?
The committee took the view that we should use our soft power wherever possible in engaging with China—a position I strongly endorse. The UK has one of the strongest higher education systems in the world, with many universities excelling in research, teaching or, in some cases, both. This is reflected in the very large number of international students choosing to study here, including those from China. While no single university should have so many Chinese students that the composition of its student population becomes very unbalanced—nor, incidentally, should they be admitting students with poor written and spoken English, as sometimes happens with Chinese students—there are benefits to the UK in students from China studying here. Many of them are extremely able and very hard-working. I remember in my time as Master of Birkbeck that the only students to be seen in the institution over Christmas were the Chinese—they were there throughout the holiday.
I certainly think that it is an advantage to us that young Chinese, able young people, should be exposed to a different culture and value system which has the potential to broaden their outlook as they perceive the importance of the UK attitudes to openness, human rights and democracy. However, if this is to apply, there must be no restraints on freedom of speech, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, and there must be freedom to pursue research for Chinese students. There is a particular danger in researching some sensitive areas of technology which may have military as well as civilian uses, but the solution is not to withdraw from Chinese involvement but instead rigorously to assess the risks and to take action to mitigate such risks.
I hope too that the British Council and others will encourage cultural activities. There is, for example, a big appetite in Chinese cities for British performances of classical music and ballet, as well as an interest in English writing and literature and in British design, as I know from my experience as chair of the British Library. It is a missed opportunity to neglect soft power of this kind, and I hope the Minister will endorse that.
I will leave some of the threats to security posed by Chinese military power in the South China Sea and beyond, as well as the danger to some developing countries of belt and road policies, to other speakers. However, I ask the Minister, following the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, how the Government are reacting to the very worrying comments on Taiwan made by President Xi in his speech last weekend to the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Congress, with the threat of possible force to secure the co-operation of incorporation of Taiwan into mainland China. Are we urgently discussing an appropriate response with our allies in the international community?
I turn to an important area where we may be able to find common cause with China, and that is climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked, in her follow-up letter to the Government’s reply to the committee’s report, for further information on how the Government plan to co-operate with China following COP 26. The reply from the Minister for Asia at the time was rather vague and procedural, citing the various contexts in which collaboration was taking place but giving virtually no detail on the content of such discussions. China has been the largest global emitter of carbon since 2006 and is now the second-largest historic producer of emissions, although it is well behind the United States. Its very size and the extent of its industrialisation mean that its climate change policies have a huge global effect.
However, the positive side is that China’s per capita consumption-based emissions, taking account of international trade, remain lower than those of the UK. Moreover, according to the International Energy Agency, its investment in clean energy amounts to a massive 30% of total global investment. It would be appropriate for the UK to recognise the efforts China is making to tackle climate change, with a goal to reach net zero before 2060. Nevertheless, there are still areas of concern, notably the fact that China is continuing to invest in new domestic coal, even though it has committed to end funding for overseas coal investment. What progress has the UK made in debating with China the continuing use of new coal, which could certainly jeopardise its net-zero targets?
I end by pointing out that our engagement with China cannot be pushed on one side. It can and should be constructive, but we must never pull our punches, particularly on human rights abuses, Taiwan, Hong Kong and on stretching WTO rules entirely in its own interest. The abandonment of any semblance of collective leadership with Xi Jinping’s appointment for a further five-year term involves a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of one man—a man whose ideological fundamentalism poses quite a big threat both to China and the rest of the world.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, if I seem a little overexcited today, it is because, after 28 years in the House of Commons and seven in your Lordships’ House, I have at last been given something on which to rest my speaking notes. I should also declare an interest as the chancellor of the University of St Andrews, which has substantial numbers of Chinese students, who come to take advantage of the education provided there.
In preparing for this case, as I am sure others have done, I read again the terms of the summary of the report. It is almost entirely still relevant, but in almost every dimension there have been substantial changes—from David Cameron and George Osborne and from Hong Kong to Huawei. There can be no doubt that the relationship between ourselves and China has deteriorated.
I propose to adopt—brevitatis causa, as the law would say—the two contributions made by the noble Baroness who was the chair of the committee and, equally perceptive, the address recently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Of all the differences, it seems to me that the disagreement over Hong Kong, involving as it does the suppression of the terms of its return by the United Kingdom to China by the Blair Government, has driven a horse and cart through the relationship, to the extent that it existed on mutual trust. Indeed, just 48 hours ago, we had an extraordinary feature of that suppression, when a peaceful protest was subject to what one might describe as assault and battery. That, I think, tells us the extent to which the atmosphere which characterised the return of Hong Kong has long since dissipated.
However, notwithstanding all these issues, we need a relationship. Some will seek to characterise it as being a contest between human rights and economic opportunity. The difficulty of that relationship is underlined by the fact that China and Russia make common cause, invariably, in the Security Council of the United Nations, in vetoing resolutions which would otherwise pass.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made clear, there are several indications of the nature of the relationship between Russia and China, but it appears from time to time that the Chinese part of that relationship is put on its inquiry. I have regard, of course, to the fact that Mr Putin felt it necessary to offer an explanation in advance before what he anticipated might be searching questions from China at the recent summit. There are those who argue that China’s reservations about the military action in Ukraine are greater than perhaps has been publicly expressed. All this suggests that China may have an interest in these matters that is more than that of cheap oil and gas—not least because, with regard to China, anything approaching instability is to be avoided.
There does not appear to have been any material impact on the conduct of Mr Putin as a result of this discussion, to which I have referred and, indeed, one could argue, particularly in recent days with the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian properties, the conduct of Russia and its forces has deteriorated even further. Indeed, one could argue that, particularly in recent days, in the deliberate targeting of civilians themselves and civilian properties, the conduct of Russia and its forces has deteriorated even further.
President Xi is, as the noble Baroness confirmed in opening our debate, likely to be elected for a record third term at the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Some have described this as a watershed, politically, militarily and economically but, so far, it does not appear that the ambitions of China are anything other than more of the same, except perhaps more extreme. As far as the leader of China is concerned, his confirmation will give him historic authority and, perhaps, overconfidence, which may explain his unspecified warning of the threat of “grave international developments”.
All of this is coupled with the assertion, to which the noble Baroness drew our attention, that military means are still on the table, as far as China is concerned, to further its ambition to bring Taiwan back into the fold. It is an interesting feature of the personality and ambitions of both Putin and Xi that they share a common interest in the pursuit of territory which, once upon a time, was regarded as being within their influence, to restore it in some kind of missionary approach as being truly part of the motherland to which it should now be restored.
As I said, in the case of Hong Kong, there is more than simply disappointment that the terms of the return of Hong Kong to China have been so badly treated. They were maintained for a period and the conditions followed as stipulated, but it is against that unhelpful background of change that the United Kingdom now needs to consider the establishment of a clearly defined relationship with China. As has already been pointed out, there is far from clarity on that matter, when clarity is urgent. It must be a relationship which does not prejudice our values; it must be a relationship that, from the point of view of both parties, is of mutual advantage. It is trite to say that it will almost certainly not be easy.
Such a relationship would best be viable if it is done with allies—I have particularly in mind allies from Europe. Our departure from the European Union is of course unhelpful in this regard, but it is not prohibitive. Respectfully, it seems to me that this would be an important way of establishing a relationship with Europe in which, thus far, the present Government, have shown little interest in creating.
In any discussion about a relationship, there will inevitably be the issue of ethical foreign policy. I remind noble Lords—because I was there when he said it—that Robin Cook never said that we had to have an ethical foreign policy. What he said was that we had to have a foreign policy with an “ethical dimension”. The truth is that in extreme circumstances, where the interests of the nation are at stake, there might be a move to depart from a strictly ethical approach. I do not believe that that is anywhere near what we are discussing in this debate, but it is important to ensure that an ethical foreign policy is not to be used as a blanket and simply the basis for refusal. It also has to take account of the fact that President Xi is open in his belief that the rules conceived in the years immediately after the Second World War do not reflect the circumstances of 2022. There may be some scope for altering rules, but there can never be any scope for abandoning the principles which lie behind them—principles which are as important today as they were in the period after the Second World War.
Let me finish, if I may, on this point. Our interest and our interests in our relationship with China should not be episodic. This is a relationship, if it is achieved, that will require consistent and continuing review. We would not expect the Government to do anything other than to approach the matter in that way, but in addition to government implementation, there is an overwhelming obligation to ensure that the legislatures—both this place and the House of Commons—have the opportunity to keep responsibility for implementing any such agreement, as I have said I believe is appropriate. The reasons for that are very simple: as the summary says, the issue is complex, and it has certainly changed very rapidly over a short period of time. There is nothing to suggest that these two characteristics will not continue to have an influence on our relationship with China.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report The UK and China’s Security and Trade Relationship contains much material and covers a lot of ground, but the central thrust of its argument can be identified from the second part of its title A Strategic Void.
The Government’s integrated review contained many aspirations and listed many activities, including in the section on China and the Indo-Pacific. But lists are not strategies. They do not aid clarity; indeed, they often confuse. The committee’s report, like that of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, called on the Government to produce a strategy which would set out a framework for dealing with China, and indeed it suggested what such a strategy might look like.
In their response, the Government seem to suggest that they have a strategy but are not going to tell us what it is for security reasons. This, if it is more than just camouflage, is unconvincing. No one expects the Government to reveal exact plans, specific means and tactical details—if indeed they exist—and I for one certainly acknowledge that intentional ambiguity can be useful in certain situations. But businesses wishing to engage with China need to have a clear idea of the risks they might be running. Academic institutions, too, need to have a good idea of how the Government might react to certain developments on the international scene. They do not need to know exactly what those reactions would be, but they need to be aware of where the Government set their priorities.
The issue of Taiwan, already mentioned this afternoon, is clearly the most dangerous aspect of our engagement with China. Supporting that country’s independence, while avoiding a general war over it, should be our top priority. President Xi’s recent statements have only added to the tension. The Government’s response to the report acknowledges the importance of the issue, but it does not say what assessments have been made of the risk of the likelihood of conflict and its possible consequences. This is not an area where I would look for detail, but I do look for an assurance that such work is in hand.
Beyond that, it is clear that China is, as one inquiry witness put it, out to make the world safe for autocracy. For those who have not read it, the special report in the latest edition of the Economist sets this out in stark terms. The Government’s response to the committee’s report admits that:
“Aspects of China’s approach to the multilateral system run counter to UK interests and values”,
and goes on:
“We will continue to take targeted action with international partners to defend universal human rights, free and fair trade, and ensure that in areas, such as emerging technology or space, that new rules, norms and standards enable freedom and democracy to survive and thrive.”
This is woefully inadequate. It makes the whole thing sound like a piece of peripheral business.
In fact, we are, or certainly should be, engaged in a fierce contest to determine the rules of the international order under which we will have to live and operate for most of the rest of this century. Very few things could be more central to our future welfare and prosperity; securing the right outcome should be one of the highest foreign policy priorities for the UK. It certainly is for the United States. President Biden has made his Administration’s position very clear on this and has set about assembling the necessary international economic, technological and military weight to counter that of China.
None of this is to argue against the desirability of business, academic and cultural links with China, but setting out the UK’s priorities in this regard would make it clear that those other areas of engagement would all be contingent upon the pursuit of our objectives regarding the international order. It is hard to see how spelling this out would endanger our security. It would, however, give those in business and elsewhere a clearer idea of the downside risks associated with such engagement.
As it is, if one reads the Government’s response regarding Huawei, for example, one gets the clear impression that this company would now have a substantial hold over our 5G network had the Americans not rather annoyingly imposed additional sanctions on it. A little earlier, the Government’s response says that the National Security and Investment Act is “country agnostic”. That might be true with regard to the wording of the Act, but to suggest the same is true of its application seems to me breathtakingly complacent.
The principal risk for UK business is of course the likely adverse Chinese reaction to our opposition in the contest to determine the future rules of the international order. The committee called on the Government to conduct an impact assessment of such an outcome. The Government’s response is a fine example of departmental waffle:
“The … relationship … is multifaceted”;
they will
“manage disagreements and defend our values while preserving space for cooperation in tackling transnational challenges … and … continued pursuit of a positive trade and investment relationship in line with our national security and values.”
It is cakeism at its best. But what do we do if somebody takes away the cake? We are given no answer.
This Panglossian approach is also evident in the Government’s response on higher education. They say:
“We will also ensure that Chinese students are treated equally to all British and international students, including protecting them from any undue pressure on political issues.”
Really? How? Are we going to ensure that their families in China are protected from official pressure or sanction? Are we going to monitor all their interactions with their own Government? Or perhaps these matters do not fall under the heading of “undue pressure”.
The Government’s response on supply chain resilience is little better. We are told:
“The Foreign Secretary has been clear that it is important that the UK does not become strategically dependent, and that, particularly in areas of Critical National Infrastructure, we work with reliable partners.”
So what action has followed? What exercises have been undertaken with a range of scenarios to give us a better idea of critical vulnerabilities and how these might be reduced? What specific command and control processes have been set in place to train for and respond to threats to our national resilience? Once again, we are given only vague reassurances.
The Government could and should do much better. We are dealing with an increasingly autocratic regime in China. I would have thought that our experiences with Russia over the past decade would have taught us what we should never have forgotten: how dangerous such regimes can be, especially when they are militarily powerful and, most especially, when they have nuclear weapons. We need a long-term strategy for dealing with them.
The Government should set out such a strategy. They should give some shape and sense of priority to their otherwise all too comprehensive and sometimes contradictory aspirations with regard to China. The committee has proposed such a shape. Finding a satisfactory but peaceful outcome to the Taiwan issue is at the top, but close behind it comes our pursuit of an international order that is fair to all and helps to protect the world from autocracy. Trade and wider engagement with China should be pursued, but not at the expense of higher-priority objectives, and in the knowledge that such prioritisation will at times lead to Chinese retaliation and all the associated risks.
In its leader article on China this week, the Economist said that
“handling the most powerful dictatorship in history was always going to require both strength and wisdom.”
It is not at all clear to me at the moment that we see enough of either. I hope that we can get more from the next Prime Minister, whoever that will be.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay and the committee on the report and my noble friend on her speech introducing the debate today. Much has taken place since the publication of the report, all of which underlines the importance of its deliberations and recommendations.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who spoke with such authority, particularly about the strategic considerations covered in the report. I agree with so much that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and, indeed, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that I will try to be brief and avoid tedious repetition.
The main recommendation, that the Government publish a clear China strategy that identifies the long-term objectives and relative priorities, has been extremely well covered by my noble friend and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. It is noteworthy that in the debate in July introduced by the noble Lord, Lord West, my noble friend Lord Sharpe said that the National Security Council leads the strategic approach to China and that the Government
“do not publish NSC strategies on China or other issues.”—[Official Report, 14/7/22; col. 1635.]
We all understand the reasons for that, as covered by the noble and gallant Lord. As the book of Ecclesiastes reminds us, there is
“A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.”
It is certainly true, as the report says, that the Government have not set out a clear position on their strategy for balancing their ambition for increased economic engagement with China with the need to protect our wider interests and values. However, as the noble and gallant Lord said, there is a distinction between having a strategy and spelling it out in every detail publicly. The Government have not yet struck that balance, and must do so.
The strategic concept document accepted at the NATO heads of government summit in June summarised the situation starkly and succinctly. In the unprecedented joint address by the head of the UK Security Service and the head of the United States FBI in July, the former referred to China remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up; the latter gave an informed summary of how their organisation viewed the threats to our—and their—economic and national security and how they were responding to them. I hope that when he responds, my noble friend the Minister will go as far as he reasonably can to reduce that opacity and amplify what has been said publicly by the Government.
In dealing with China, I use the word to mean the Government of the People’s Republic of China, rather than the country or its people.
I acknowledge that public utterances can sometimes make a bad situation worse. We in this country have historically taken, until recently, a very cautious approach. However, there is a distinction between counterproductive megaphone diplomacy and robust public exchanges. In my experience, Chinese government interlocutors respect plain speaking rather than circumlocution. Their own official spokesmen have seldom erred on the side of reticence or understatement. Speaking in private, which has been our tradition, may or may not carry more weight than public utterances, if indeed any weight at all, depending on the circumstances. The important thing in my view is to continue to engage. As the report says, there is no realistic alternative.
It is welcome that, in their response to the report, the Government said that they would continue to co-operate and engage with China in areas of shared interest, as my noble friend Lady Anelay, said, such as climate change, biodiversity and global health. To that I would add, among other things, Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which I believe have rung alarm bells in Beijing as elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned. China has considerable political leverage with Russia, and that is clearly an area where it is worth trying to engage.
In their reply to the committee’s report, the Government rightly recognised that British interests are best served by an international rules-based order—that has always been the British Government’s position. It is proposed that the Government should play a leading role in strengthening international organisations, such as the World Trade Organization, and assembling a group of nations with sufficient aggregate political, economic and scientific power to counter that of China and successfully influence uncommitted countries. It would helpfully serve that important and laudable objective if the British Government themselves continue to uphold and treat international law as a whole and not as an à la carte menu from which to choose their own preferences. In that context, I believe it to be important that this country continues to abide by our treaty obligations under the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong, which continue for a further 25 years, whatever the future circumstances may be and whatever China may do.
The committee rightly pointed out that, in seeking to further any of our objectives and strategic priorities, careful diplomacy would be needed and that the necessary understanding of China was neither as deep nor as widespread across government as needed. I share that perception. We live, needless to say, in straitened economic circumstances, but in the totality of government expenditure the Foreign Office budget is exiguous. We have spent time and money in the past, through the Great Britain-China Centre and other organisations, seeking to help build capacity in China in such areas as law and accountancy. We should now devote resources to building our own capacity, both linguistic and in knowledge of China’s life, history and culture across government. It is encouraging that the Government in their response to the report have recognised that.
Nor should those efforts be restricted to government employees; there should be a holistic approach across government. The education system itself should be encouraged to foster a knowledge of Chinese languages, history and culture. I speak as the modestly proud father of one who studied Mandarin at both British and Chinese universities before working in China. This should be a high priority across government. Again, it is welcome that, in their response to the report, the Government commit to strengthening people-to-people links and support Chinese language teaching and cultural exchange with China.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the disgraceful scenes in Manchester, which we all saw on our television screens earlier this week. In his book Experiences of China, published in 1994, the late Sir Percy Cradock recounts how after the sacking of the British embassy in Peking during the Cultural Revolution, he, bloody but unbowed, surrounded by a howling mob, quoted to his British companions in distress Virgil’s line from the Aeneid:
“forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit”—
perhaps even these things it will one day be a joy to recall. Perhaps we should today read a little further in the Aeneid:
“Durate, et vosmet rebus servate secundis”—
then endure for a while and live for a happier day. Or again:
“nunc animis opus, Aenea, nunc pectore firmo”—
now, Aeneas, for a bold spirit and a strong heart. The Government deserve our full support in this important and extremely difficult task of managing this relationship. We wish them well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. I think the last time we were together at a public event was at the launch of the diaries of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in which Sir Percy Cradock features quite prominently. Anyone wanting to understand the betrayal of the people of Hong Kong should most certainly read them. I declare my interests as vice-chair of the all-party groups on the Uighurs and Hong Kong. I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch and a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China.
Notwithstanding the disappointment that it has taken so long for the Select Committee report to be debated, I put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her superb chairmanship of the committee and for navigating us through controversial issues to produce a report which moves the debate beyond the naivety of the “golden era”—which was, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, told us, an example of “doubtless well-meaning failure”. The report tackles hugely important questions about trade and security, not least the gaping wounds of lost national resilience and our phenomenal dependency on a country which stands accused of genocide.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind told us:
“China has become much closer to a totalitarian state than at any time since the death of Mao Zedong.”
We heard what we called
“conclusive evidence that China also poses a significant threat to the UK’s interests, particularly in light of the … tilt to the Indo-Pacific region.”
We concluded that the UK has had a lack of clarity and a policy of “deliberate constructive ambiguity”, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup has reminded us, and what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to as the “cake-ism” of the 2021 integrated review, which regarded China as both a “systemic competitor” and an “important partner”.
The report criticises the failure to provide any details on how the Government will balance plans for
“increased economic engagement … with the need to protect the UK’s wider interests and values.”
It calls on the Government to produce a “single, coherent China strategy” and warns of serious risks to our security and prosperity—including to our international trade and investments over the longer term.
This month’s government announcement that China is to be formally designated a “threat” to Britain rather than a “systemic competitor” is a belated but very welcome move towards a clearer strategy. It follows the recent warnings by Jeremy Fleming, the head of GCHQ, about the CCP’s efforts to exploit control and surveillance capabilities in emerging technologies, such as satellite location systems and digital currencies, which he said represent a “threat to us all”. I have eight questions for the Minister about specific threats to which I hope he can give us some answers today—if not, I hope he will agree to write to us.
First, during the passage of the telecommunications legislation, the Government said they would strip out 5G Huawei components from our telecom network. This removal of 5G was to happen in January 2023, with fines if the deadline was not met. Now we are told that there will be delays, even though a designated vendor direction has been issued identifying, in the Government’s words, that
“covert and malicious functionality could be embedded in Huawei’s equipment.”
When will the decision on Huawei be fully complied with?
Secondly, why have the Government, unlike the United States, still made no move to ban and remove Hikvision and Dahua cameras made in Xinjiang and used to collect data up and down the length and breadth of the UK? There is an opportunity in the Procurement Bill to remedy this. Will the Minister be able to tell us whether that opportunity will be taken at Report stage of that Bill?
Thirdly, on Monday—the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and others have referred to this—the Minister told us that the assault on Bob Chan, the young man at the Chinese consulate in Manchester, was “a very serious incident.” I met Bob Chan yesterday. Can the Minister tell us when the Greater Manchester Police are likely to provide a report to him and the Foreign Secretary and to spell out the consequences when the brutality for which the CCP is renowned is exported to the UK, threatening the safety of the 133,000 and more Hong Kongers who have fled to the United Kingdom under the Government’s admirable BNO resettlement scheme? I draw the Minister’s attention to a column in today’s Times, written by Jawad Iqbal, a freelance journalist, who says that what happened in Manchester was an
“affront to British democratic norms and values.”
Fourthly, the BBC reported last week that up to 30 former UK military pilots are believed to have gone to train members of China’s People’s Liberation Army, lured by the CCP with large sums of money to pass on their expertise to the Chinese military. What are we doing to address that threat?
Fifthly, with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, we were in two of the Gulf states last week and were concerned to learn of joint military exercises between China, Russia and Iran. So imagine my consternation on return on reading a report in the Telegraph saying that:
“British academics have collaborated on thousands of research papers with Chinese military scientists, according to a government-funded report that universities sought to suppress.”
Some 13,415 collaborative partnerships with China, Russia and Iran were identified, and 11,611 were between Chinese and British academics. Why was the report suppressed, and what are we doing in partnerships on things as sensitive as rail gun design, hypersonic missiles and tracking systems for nuclear submarines? Why are we sharing expertise or developing partnerships to do those things?
Sixthly, despite our intelligence service publicly warning Parliament of the presence of CCP operatives and spies on our Parliamentary Estate, with one claiming that she had even secured amendments to legislation in your Lordships’ House, why has no action been taken to bring her here, for instance, to answer questions about these subversive activities?
Seventhly, in addition to subversion of UK institutions, we have seen the subversion of international institutions, with the votes of countries being bought and linked to belt and road indebtedness. How are we countering this? For instance, what will be included in the National Security Bill, currently in another place, to limit interference by people operating on behalf of the Chinese state?
Eighthly, the Minister is rightly regarded as one of this country’s leading champions of renewable energy and sustainability. What does he make of reports drawn to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that BMW is to stop producing electric cars in England in 2023 and moving the production of electric Minis from Cowley to China? Last year, Cowley made around 40,000 electric Minis. Why are we ceding our aspirations to be a leader in global electric car manufacturing? What can be done about this? How can we avert it? I will have more to say about resilience and dependency.
Ken McCallum, MI5’s director-general, has said
“what is at risk from Chinese Communist Party aggression is … The world-leading expertise, technology, research and commercial advantage developed”
by technology companies and universities in the UK. We have to take that seriously.
In addition to threats to cybersecurity and technology, our report highlighted threats to maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region and to Taiwan, as we have heard, where we said conflict would be “catastrophic” and that
“managing this risk should be the Government’s top strategic priority.”
We raised serious maritime threats, the imposition of the national security law, the trashing of an international treaty and destruction of democracy in Hong Kong—all illustrative of the CCP’s contempt for international rules-based order—and what Michelle Bachelet recently described as “crimes against humanity” in Xinjiang in a report commissioned by the UN.
In his evidence to the committee, Charles Parton went further and said that genocide—not just crimes against humanity but outright genocide—is under way in Xinjiang. When she was Foreign Secretary, Elizabeth Truss said the same. The appalling treatment of the mainly Muslim Uighurs, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has included intense surveillance, much of it manufactured by Hikvision, mass detentions, forcible sterilisation and insertion of IUDs, forced migration, and the kidnapping of Uighur children, abducted from their parents and placed in state institutions, accompanied by terrible violence, torture and killing.
Both Sir Geoffrey Nice KC’s independent tribunal and the Holocaust Museum found evidence of coercive interventions by the Chinese government to prevent sizeable numbers of Uighurs from coming into being, suggesting that the deliberate goal is
“to biologically destroy the group, in whole or in substantial part.”
Nice’s tribunal concluded that this is indeed genocide.
I ask the Minister the same question that I put to George Osborne when he appeared before the committee. It was not a question about whether we should trade with countries that commit human rights violations, because we could identify countries around the world that commit human rights violations, it was: is it licit to do business as usual with a state credibly accused of genocide, which is the crime above all crimes?
In our report, we recommend that the Government
“should incorporate an atrocity prevention lens in its overall approach to trade. Current atrocity prevention tools and strategies have fallen short.”
When will the Government do this?
Then—as I said I would return to it—there is our appalling dependency on the CCP. Compare it with the clarity of its strategy of undermining resilience and security; acquiring intellectual property and data; and destroying competitiveness through slave labour in everything from green energy to surveillance equipment. One of the CCP’s reasons for wanting to destroy the freedoms of Taiwan’s 23 million people is to control the production of the world’s semiconductors—the cornerstone of modern economies. One Taiwanese company, TSMC, makes over 80% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors.
Meanwhile, further illustrating our incoherent strategy, we seriously consider allowing the sale to China of Newport Wafer Fab—our biggest producer of semiconductors. As Germany has discovered, love affairs with dictatorships come at a terrible price. Where does the sale of Newport Wafer Fab now stand?
During our inquiry, I was surprised to hear witnesses tell us how fortunate we were that China had made available invaluable help during a pandemic that had its origins in Wuhan. This included a reluctant admission that the Government had bought 1 billion lateral flow tests from China. They subsequently confirmed that they bought 24.1 billion items of personal protective equipment where China is recorded as the country of origin, at a phenomenal total cost of £10.9 billion. That is about the equivalent of the entire—reduced—British overseas aid budget.
This is not philanthropy. Increasingly, developing nations are being turned into dependent vassal states. We saw in the recent vote on the Bachelet report in the Human Rights Council that votes of those who voted with China not to even debate the report have been bought via indebted dependency. A diplomat recently said it was like having a
“1,000 pound gorilla on my back.”
Note, too, that by September, in the face of the global food crisis, China had given $10 million to the World Food Programme, compared with $5 billion from the United States of America. We see the same attempted systematic appropriation and subversion of international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization.
Xi Jinping and the CCP have demonstrated time and again that they are unwilling to abide by international treaties, and that they are untrustworthy, cruel and unpredictable. This includes when it comes to the ongoing breach of the Sino-British joint declaration and the human rights crackdown in Hong Kong; the crimes against humanity or genocide taking place in Xinjiang; the launching of trade wars against countries such as Lithuania and Australia; the unlawful detention of Canadian diplomats; and the flouting of basic obligations under the WHO when it comes to sharing information regarding pandemics. Ministers could do well to look at the Biden Administration and recent legislation in the US Congress, including the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, to see a Government willing to invest in domestic industry, tackle climate change and reduce their dependency on authoritarian regimes.
If the West wants to protect itself, it must face up to the reality of the CCP’s history and its future intentions: executions; famine; deaths through forced labour; mass deportations; forced sterilisation and coercive abortion; purges of opponents; incarceration for dissent or unwillingness to comply with a brutal ideology—these are all the hallmarks of the CCP. With Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping signing a declaration that there will be “no limits” to their friendship, it is crucial, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, reminded us, that we build our international partnerships and alliances through NATO, AUKUS and elsewhere.
To conclude, the CCP has been holding its rubber-stamp Congress. Obsessed with control—evidenced by its lockdown policy—it is veering in the direction of belligerent nationalism. But as has been demonstrated by “Tank Man” in Tiananmen Square in 1989, “Bridge Man” on the Sitong Bridge last week or Bob Chan protesting in Manchester on behalf of those who remain in Hong Kong, and by the brave people of Taiwan, Ukraine and the young women of Iran, authoritarians often overestimate their hold on power.
Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese writer and dissident and Nobel laureate, who died in 2017 after serving four prison sentences, said,
“there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom”.
He was right.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. There has been a marked diminution of trust between the US and UK and China and its leadership, and the resulting tensions are likely to continue and even to escalate. The committee’s report is therefore extremely timely and important.
As we have heard repeatedly this afternoon, the main lacuna in the UK’s approach to China includes the lack of a clear strategy on what values and interests the UK is trying to uphold. What follows is a number of actions and policies which amount to a series of tactics rather than a strategy—tactics which are weakened as a result.
The report calls on the Government to remedy this by developing and publishing a single coherent China strategy which details objectives and how they plan to achieve them. The standard response to this request is either that it is already in hand or just about to be completed. So far, however, the UK Government have declined to publish their plans. China experts lament this and continue to push for details on both the overall strategy and the mechanisms by which it could be achieved.
What is needed is a new politics of balance: a stated policy of “on the one hand and on the other” approach. That would entail co-operation and reaching out to the PRC on matters of trade, environment and civil affairs while protecting national security, economic prosperity, personal data and values. If there were to be an unambiguous and consistent approach in all UK dealings with China that was clear not only to the PRC but to all countries in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, red lines would quickly become apparent.
The takeover of Hong Kong by the PRC, dismissing all previous treaties and agreements, sadly, did not seem to constitute a red line, and fears that similar inroads on Taiwan would not evoke unequivocal action from the UK are realistic. Nor, apparently, is the widespread view that China’s actions against the Uighurs amounts to genocide eliciting strong enough condemnation and action by the UK Government, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
The inconsistency of the UK approach to China’s aggression is itself a weakness that could be resolved in part with a strategic plan of action. Meanwhile, actions that are being taken or planned by the UK Government have a somewhat capricious, even unserious, flavour due to the lack of a stated strategy to which all tactical actions could and should be directed.
To put meat on the bones of tactics, the report and other contributions from China experts suggest a number of innovations. These include an in-depth study on the extent of the security threat posed by the PRC, to be carried out in consultation with scholars and other advisers. The current FCDO China department refers to the PRC only as a “systemic competitor”, which tends to downplay serious efforts to infringe the UK’s integrity. A programme of recruitment is needed to ensure that there is wide expertise available to the civil servants and to government departments. Given that the PRC’s ambitions, intentions and methods shift constantly, there needs to be ongoing research, consultation and policy adjustments by the China watchers as well as effective cross-government liaison and co-ordination. Interestingly, there is no reference in the Government’s response to co-ordination with European partners on trade and security policies.
The Government’s response on Taiwan is to “grow our relationship”. Once again, what is needed here is a detailed inventory of actions to support Taiwan with strong lobbying for its inclusion in relevant international organisations; a willingness to accede to requests from Taiwan for asymmetrical—or porcupine—defence weaponry; and to encourage further visits by senior ministerial, parliamentarians and other arms of government personnel.
As in other nations with questionable values and freedoms, the outreach activities tend to centre around institutional and capacity building and non-traditional security areas, such as training and joint exercises. The BBC and British Council are long established and greatly valued soft-power organisations and their role in bridging peoples across nations cannot and must not be diminished. In this context, the planned or proposed cuts to the BBC World Service are, to say the least, disheartening.
Above all, there seems to be a consensus that the UK’s China policy must avoid being dominated by profit alone.
The Government’s response to the committee’s report is, to my mind, rather too full of intentions in place of actions: for example,
“We … intend to increase our broader Defence Engagement including through capacity building and training, delivered by longer and more consistent military deployments”;
or, to give another example, the Government intend to overcome barriers to investment and point to the potential export opportunities in education, food and drink, pharmaceuticals and medical technology, without any concrete suggestions as to how this will be achieved.
Overall, the grandiose statement in the Government’s response that
“we will harness the UK’s strength as an outward-looking nation, confident in its ability to innovate, compete, lead and deliver for British businesses and the British people”,
is not always matched by diverse actions and intentions. If a coherent strategy can be agreed on which makes all the red lines clear and emphasises both the opportunities and constraints, there will be increased room for trade and soft power initiatives to achieve a much greater return.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in such a highly informative and well-informed debate on such a vital issue. It is a bit hard to focus at the moment when I gather that we are once again in search of another Prime Minister, but that is an issue that we shall put aside for a moment and rightly concentrate on this one.
It is a very interesting report. It is remarkable that we are debating it now, a year after it was published. There seems to be something wrong with the machinery for deciding the timing of these things. It is an excellent volume, under the superb chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Anelay, and we ought of course to have come to it much earlier. Oddly enough, and ironically, because of that delay it has arrived for this debate at a very topical time indeed. China is now more than ever at the centre of our affairs—our home affairs as well as our international affairs—on energy questions and the climate issue, which has already been mentioned, where it is central. We have Xi Jinping at the 20th plenum eyeing up Taiwan again and saying that he is not ruling out force, and apparently we are being told by the strategists that Beijing says that, if China sees that America is getting too intrusive, it will, in those chilling words, “surround Taiwan” in three hours—a rather sinister warning of what is to come.
As for Ukraine, the Chinese role has always seemed to me—and, I think, to many others in this Room—pretty central to that as well. As long as Putin has felt that he has solid support from Beijing, he will not lose much sleep over threats from NATO and so on. Slightly encouragingly, I hear, and I am sure others will hear, that the Chinese are getting increasingly worried about Putin and feeling that they are losing control of him. Of course, what they are terrified of is that he will start with the tactical nuclear weapons. So I hope that, maybe if we have good back-track relations with China on that issue, we can exert some more influence on this evil man in the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, of course, China continues to be, embedded here at home right in the United Kingdom at the heart of our nuclear power replacement programme, which happens to be vital to the whole strategy of carbon reduction in the future. That is more and more important now, as our leaders realise that net zero is splendid but it will not be anything like enough to check the vast growth in emissions, coming not least from China but also from the rest of Asia, which is roaring ahead and for which entirely new policies will be needed. So here we are, dealing with and addressing an issue which is highly topical, despite this deplorable delay.
I just had one additional theme to add to the story, and indeed to the report and to the Government’s response, where it was a missing element. I refer to it in rather over-graphic terms used by one expert, who observed that China as part of its hegemonic strategy is hoovering up the developing world, and in particular the Commonwealth members of the developing world—the coastal states of Africa, but even more the islands of the global south: the South Pacific and the Caribbean as well, and indeed parts of Latin America too. This development does not get much mention from the witnesses in this report, and yet it is really the key issue in our relationship with China and the most serious threat in the medium term to our influence, to the transmission of our soft power and to our place in a transformed world with a rising Asia accounting for an increasing volume of world product activity and indeed a major contribution to security.
The most visible immediate sign of that is what has been going on in the Solomon Islands, which I think took everybody by surprise. Indeed, it seemed to me, listening to our distinguished diplomats, that they were only dimly aware that the Solomons were part of the Commonwealth, that the Queen was the Head of State and that we appointed the governor-general. However, that picture was soon asserted when we saw photographs of the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands with the Defence Minister of China inspecting a rather grim formation of burly-looking Chinese troops on parade. Was that supposed to be what we were trying to achieve in the Solomon Islands? Rapidly, people reassessed and increased our influenced on them and realised that that is not the way we want things to go.
Then there is Vanuatu, of course, which has a huge Chinese base on it. Tuvalu has now been incorporated. Incidentally, the Solomons sit over one of the main maritime routes of the entire east Asian trade, which is a huge proportion of world trade, and the arrival of China there, and its proposal to have a nuclear base, is a matter that concerns us very much indeed.
Then we have Africa where, as we know, the Chinese have had their setbacks and are not always popular, particularly when they have used prisoners to do infrastructure work. But they call themselves Africa’s “dependable ally”, and are increasingly involved in a whole range of countries. Indeed, they have a military base in the top of Africa, in Djibouti, which is a real advance and departure. That is significant, because it brings home that we are talking about not just trade involvement—bags of gold, infrastructure, new conference centres, roads and railways and all that sort of thing—but about security co-operation. We are talking about military training, weaponry and the Sandhurst of China— the Sandhurst of Beijing, rather than the Sandhurst of Camberley—offering thousands of places for officer training to teach military values that are very different from our views of how armies should fit into democratic societies. All that is going on, almost—and I hope that I will be forgiven for saying this—with an oblivious disregard from our policymakers here about what is really happening.
That is the global south—and then we have the Caribbean, of course. I know that Barbados has not left the Commonwealth, although the media think that it has, because it has ceased to be a realm. They are very confused and do not actually understand what is happening in the Commonwealth at all. But those who went there tell me that, as they left, large jumbo planes were arriving and parking at the airport, covered in Chinese designations and signs. It turns out that the Barbadian Government have become dangerously involved, as have many other countries, in owing China a large amount of money for what they thought were grants, which turned out to be loans. They are going to cause a lot of grief when they have to be repaid.
So here is a picture of our Commonwealth of like-minded countries, which are privileged to be members of it—and it is one of the main sources of our transmission and influence in the world. We would like to think that it would be a chain of liberty and democracy containing China, but almost before our eyes it is being turned on its head into a chain of Chinese projection of its power, instead of a containment of its power. It is a very serious development, not mentioned here and not mentioned by the Foreign Office; it is not understood, and it is coming into our lives in very serious ways and at great speed.
We have, of course, huge involvement in south Asia. We have our involvement in Five Eyes and the Five Power system, which was mentioned very thoroughly in the report. We have our links with Japan, which are again covered in the report, and we have AUKUS and the submarine plans, which are important. We have our ambitions to join the CPTPP. We are not involved in the RCEP. All these are organisations far larger than the European market, and far more important in the long term for our development.
We have that; versus that, we have a China which at a very deliberate, practical and detailed level—with not too much ideology but in detail—is constantly moving from island to island and state to state. China is arranging not only the links that I talked about earlier but also technology links and opportunities that they can use as basis for GPS, which we are told is part of the next war, in space, and for drone development, which you do not need on a small island, for a large airport with a large airstrip, and for a whole range of other technologies controlling maritime movements through the continental shelf and the UN’s law of the sea provisions of immense strategic value.
I was saddened to hear from a leading Foreign Office expert a year or so ago that the Commonwealth was a bit boring; it was much-loved by the late Queen, but these little islands were very remote and of no strategic significance. The Chinese do not think that; they think the opposite. They think they are of high strategic significance, and they are involving themselves in these nations at a great rate and in many very effective, soft-power types of ways. I wanted to add that missing bit to our debate, to the Government’s response and to the report, because it is the most important bit of all.
I wish we could have a strategy and framework, which noble Lords with huge expertise are calling for, but I do not think it will be like that. The pace of change of events is enormous, and we have to, at best, try to fit in with the hard cop, soft cop pattern. We need to be hard cop.
We listened to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with his ceaseless and superb indications of the nasty, illiberal side of China, and what it is doing to people in thuggish ways—there was a little demonstration of that in Manchester last week, which I thought was very interesting. These are Chinese thugs at work; we know that this is a streak in the Chinese character. We have to listen to Xi claiming his endless term of office and talking, frankly, ideological rubbish about how we must go back to Marx and Leninism. He has issued his own absurd “Little Red Book”. The Chinese are not fools; I do not know how they will tolerate that sort of thing, but I do not think that it will last.
We have to be the hard cop there, but we also have to be the soft cop, because China is a world leader in technology, it is a decisive part of the world economy—I understand that China is the second-largest source of imports to this country—and it is embedded in our nuclear power, as I said earlier, and indeed in many other aspects of our infrastructure, partly as a result of being perhaps overencouraged 10 years ago. As noble Lords have rightly said, the world has changed radically. We now have to look at China with the scales dropped from our eyes and realise that we have to deal with it—while holding our noses—but that it is also, potentially, an increasingly dangerous threat to the order of a democratic, free world.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and his wise words, particularly on Chinese influence in Africa and beyond, because that is where the cut in our foreign aid budget has quite substantially taken away the power, prominence and respect that we had in international development. It is something that we pay for when our competitors take over.
My bedtime reading tends to be contemporary and modern history, rather than fiction—although obviously as you get close to the Trump Administration the two tend to merge. It is quite clear, and comes over in the report, that we as a nation were a major part of China’s humiliation through the opium wars. Perhaps there is a lesson there that, as you overtake people going up the global league table, it is good to remember occasionally that you might be on the way back down a few years later—maybe that affects the relationship.
I am reminded that we had President Xi here in this Palace in 2015, only seven years ago. He addressed us as the combined Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery, and I was privileged—I will use that word—to meet him personally for an instant afterwards at a reception, because I had chaired a committee delegation to China a few years before. We were given the chance to say one sentence to him. I do not know whether he understands any English—he certainly makes out that he does not, and he probably does not—or whether what I said was translated, but I made some fatuous comment about the importance of the European Union. What I really wanted to say to him was, “President of China, you don’t have to assert yourself as China in the globe, because the rest of the world realises that you as a nation will be a major player globally over the next century. You don’t have to assert that in other ways; it is evident in the economy, size, population and other issues.”
Unfortunately, he clearly has not taken the advice that I would have given him. As has been said, we have very much seen this in Hong Kong and the end of “one country, two systems”. We have also seen it in the gradual but assertive implementation around the nine-dash line in the South China Sea; although we have shown that we still treat them as international waters, along with our other allies, predominantly America, its taking control of that area continues. On Taiwan, both we and China have become more threatening, as we saw in particular with the Nancy Pelosi visit. I am pleased to say that India, which we often forget about, is also mentioned in this report, as is the control line, where China is claiming parts of the Indian nation—those are two nuclear powers occasionally facing off with border skirmishes. There is also the growth of its military power and the President going for life presidency of China. There are other big challenges that other Members have already gone through.
Connections with China are important, however. I will reflect some of the themes around climate change that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, talked about, and then move on to supply chains, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, it is quite clear that China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, having overtaken the United States. It accounts for something like a quarter of emissions. Without getting too techie on this, even on a consumption basis—often we look at China as the workshop of the world, exporting to us, and we export its emissions back—it still accounts for about a quarter of emissions, given its economic growth and the way that incomes have gone up there. Even cumulatively, to look back through history, China is now the second most responsible for the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. No longer can it blame the western world for being the major emitter; admittedly, on a per capita basis, although it is now ahead of us in the United Kingdom, it is still well behind the United States.
Partly through our good work—and that of Alok Sharma in his presidency of COP 26—China has now set a target of peaking its emissions in 2030 and meeting net zero in 2060. I do not know whether it will do that; ironically, it seems it might actually achieve it through the continued zero-Covid policy, which has crippled and will continue to cripple Chinese economic capacity for some time to come, until it has to make that break—I hope for the Chinese population that it will use western vaccines.
It is imperative that we engage China in that process globally. As the noble Baroness said, it is ahead globally on investment in renewables of all sorts. In fact, it has three times the level of renewables investment of the United States, which is second. It is a key player in that area and we must encourage and include it globally, despite the rest of the issues, in those conversations moving forward. It is so important that we remain global leaders in that area. How does the Minister see our leadership now that the present Government—and, I presume, the next Government under a new Prime Minister—have endorsed fracking in this country? I would be very interested in his comments on that.
That leadership on investment, however, has another difficult effect on us. Through its supply chain and economy, China produces some 80% of solar panels globally. It has, if not quite a monopoly, a dominant oligopolistic position in supply chains nationally and globally, which is expected to rise to something like 95% if trends continue in certain areas of that supply chain. We in this country are very much into wind, and offshore wind, but solar is the major area of renewables transition and China has, and will continue to have, a stranglehold in that area. In EV batteries—I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned EVs—it has a market share of about 60% at the moment in productive capacity. Even on wind turbines, 10 of the top 15 companies globally are Chinese. Most of those are for investment within China, but believe me, Chinese companies are predatory globally. Once they fulfil their own market and have extra capacity, they will move outside. There is real concern here about the transition needed throughout the world when China has a stranglehold on those technologies. I am interested to understand from the Minister, who I know is very strong in these areas, how we might start to change that so we do not have the equivalent of Russian gas dependency that the European Union has had until now.
I mention one more related area: rare earths. Again, China has something like an 80% stranglehold on the production of rare earths. As we know, there are 17 of these elements and, because of their conductivity and magnetism, they are used in all sorts of high-tech applications. I am not so much asking about alternative sources of supply—although that is important and I would be interested to also hear how the Government are approaching that. To me, this is the key area where we need to move from a linear to a circular economy; this is true in batteries—lithium and others. For all transition and high-tech sectors, we need to concentrate on and incentivise a circular economy, so that we can recycle these products and use them within our economy, increasing our security and lessening our dependence on other, chancier nations, securing our supply chain and helping the earth’s resources as well. Can the Minister say whether the Government are really going to push forward that agenda?
China may look on the United Kingdom as a not particularly helpful player in the past, but that is no excuse for its agenda at the moment. This report, produced under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, lays out a lot of those challenges. We must work with our allies in Europe, the rest of the world and the G7 to ensure that the rise of China is much more benevolent and less dangerous to us as a civilisation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, particularly since he referred to a couple of themes I will mention myself: the pitiful state of our international aid performance and how that affects competition with China, and climate change.
We should perhaps be thankful for small mercies: we are debating this valuable report from the International Relations and Defence Committee a mere 13 months after it was published and nearly a year after the Government’s response to its conclusions and recommendations. I join those who say that if we cannot remedy that sort of delay, we are not performing very effectively. However, I would not give any criticism whatever to the excellent introduction and presentation by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, at whose feet I sat for the years I was on the IRDC—not, I hasten to say, when this report was being written—and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who started that committee off on its voyage of discovery.
What a year it has been. It has upended some of the foundations of both the report and the Government’s response, principally with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it is now concluding with President Xi’s likely coronation for a further five years in power—or perhaps longer. It is no wonder that the Government are said to be going to revisit their pre-predecessor’s security review; it would certainly be welcome to have the Minister’s indication on the timing of that when he replies to the debate.
The first requirement for such a review would be the rather overhyped “tilt” in our security and defence policy towards the Indo-Pacific region—overhyped because not much has actually happened since it was proclaimed, other than the very welcome AUKUS agreement over the provision of nuclear propulsion submarine technology. In any case, the trouble about a tilt towards something is that it is necessarily a tilt away from something else, and this is hardly the time—following the invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling—to be tilting away from European security, which surely remains at the heart of this country’s overall security and to which NATO has now committed itself with renewed vigour and determination. How do the Government plan to adjust that balance or, I suggest, potential imbalance? Do the Government recognise that perhaps the best contribution Britain could make to the security of Taiwan is to ensure that Putin’s Ukraine gamble fails?
It was somewhat surprising to see nothing in the report, or in the response to it, about China’s role as a nuclear weapons state, one which without much shadow of a doubt is substantially increasing its nuclear capabilities and arsenal. The need to draw China into a serious discussion of strategic stability between the P5 recognised nuclear weapons states is surely more necessary than ever, however daunting the obstacles may now look in the short term. What is the Government’s view and policy on that critical issue?
I found some contradictions, in both the report and the Government’s response to it, between the section on China’s role in the multilateral system, on which the report and the Government’s response were critical and rather negative, and what was said about the handling of some of the vital global multilateral challenges such as climate change and trade rules—and one should probably add health pandemics to that list. The report states bluntly:
“The challenge of climate change cannot be addressed without engagement with China.”
That surely cannot be gainsaid, in which case we will have to accept that China will need to play a major role in the search for solutions to these challenges. There I slightly differ from my noble and gallant friend when he said that we must lay down the rules; good luck to him, going off to the Chinese, telling them that we need their full commitment to climate change and saying, “By the way, here are the rules”. That sort of approach may be manageable with Russia, which can be treated as a pariah state, but it cannot be successfully used with China.
The problem of China’s human rights record, which several noble Lords have referred to, clearly cannot, should not and must not be ducked—whether one is talking about Xinjiang or Hong Kong. However, we need a rapier rather than a battle-axe when responding to the abuses taking place. Do the Government agree with that analysis? By the way, how will we handle China’s bid to join the CPTPP if, as is to be hoped, we succeed in joining that group before China does and thus acquire a say in China’s accession? How will we use that say?
In conclusion, I add one caveat to the committee’s broadly very welcome call for a clear British strategy towards China. It must surely be evident that Britain cannot, on its own, hope to fashion or apply such a strategy. We must work one out in concert with our main allies and partners. We also need to recognise that we will not get a lot of support for such a strategy from the wide range of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, which have been referred to by many participants in this debate, if we frame it simply as a “with us or against us” choice and, even more so, if we continue to shrink our overseas aid contribution to helping these countries face their own main challenges. We need to reach out to like-minded countries to fashion this strategy and not simply wrap a towel around our head and produce it ourselves. I noticed that the advice that the Foreign Minister of the European Union gave to the Heads of Government who are meeting today on toughening up the EU’s policy towards China bore a singular resemblance to the views expressed by many noble Lords around this Room this afternoon —so I think we know where to start.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who speaks with such wisdom and experience in these matters. I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay, the chair of the committee, for bringing this remarkable report. I echo my noble friend Lord Howell in saying that it was always a hard-hitting, wake-up call of a report, but it is even more relevant today. While the delay is regretful, this debate could not be more timely.
I completely agree with those speakers who have noted the failure by the Government to publish a clear China strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, was quite right when she said that that is a big mistake. My area is that of innovation and I just want to talk about what the implications are of that mistake in that area of innovation.
I saw for myself as a Health Minister during the pandemic the critical importance of trade and scientific dialogue with China. When the supply chains collapsed, I was on the phone trying to rustle up PPE from suppliers literally standing on the tarmac at Hong Kong airport. I had a role in the £3.5 billion-worth of LFDs that have been bought off China and which have been incredibly important in our battle against Covid. I also gave ministerial oversight to the development of new therapeutics and diagnostics, often with Chinese academic partners and suppliers involved. So I am in no doubt about the value of Chinese scientists to some of the great challenges of our time, including fighting disease and climate change.
However, we are entering a period where the CCP has outlined a clear manifesto for technological supremacy in a number of strategic fields—fields that we have a very keen and important interest in. Launched in 2019, as many noble Lords know very well, the Chinese Government’s “Made in China 2025” programme is a highly sophisticated state-led industrial policy, which has a clear purpose of making make China dominant in global high-tech manufacturing. This is, I am afraid, an example of China turning in on itself, making preparations in case there is a confrontation with its rivals. We would be absolutely foolish to ignore this. We should take this 10-year plan seriously as a piece of hard-edged industrial strategy with key metrics and a ruthless approach to success.
We know a lot about China’s approach. Beijing’s hybrid innovation system blends academic collaboration, industrial partnerships, cyberespionage, direct investment and influence operations to enhance China’s comprehensive national power and, in particular, to acquire modern technologies. I can report that it is absolutely working: China is making remarkable strides towards realising its dream of technological self-sufficiency. Chinese companies have caught up and even surpassed western firms in key strategic industries such as 5G, genomic science, AI, quantum computing, space and aerospace electronics. This does not necessarily contribute to the sum of human happiness because, unfortunately, China is at the same time becoming a competitive, authoritarian, imperial power, not necessarily apt to share its technological advantages. We will suffer if it dominates strategically important industries.
We should not give up in this battle for technology. We know that we have keen advantages still in important areas. The area of vaccines is one area where we have demonstrated the strength of our science. That is why I welcome the change in rhetoric from “golden age” to “global threat”. But the implementation of the Government’s new thinking is worryingly slow, as many noble Lords have noted, and I want to give two illustrations of the problem.
Let us take for instance the area of medical devices, an industry that we have very strong capabilities in, and one of the strategic industries identified in “Made in China”. China lacks technological leadership in this area, and it is therefore a valuable market for European and American companies, as China imports over 70% of its medical devices. Given the importance of this sector to the resilience of the health system, the Chinese Government have worked on a five-year plan to make at least six companies in China reach the top 50 globally from pretty much a standing start. It is going very well for them. During the pandemic, as my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out, Chinese firms boomed. Off the back of that success, in the last few months, Chinese ministries and commissions issued notices prohibiting all public medical institutions from procuring imported medical equipment without approval. Overseas firms are being pressured into technology transfers. Many are backing off trade and production in China, with an impact on jobs at home. Meanwhile, Chinese medical technology firms are beginning to use their domestic market power to drive down costs.
We have already seen in fields such as telecoms and solar energy how Chinese companies can use domestic market power to dump product and crush our businesses. If we do not have a thoughtful fight-back, we can lose technological advantage in an industry that protects our people, provides jobs and is critical for a better life. That is why it is worrying that Chinese investors have such a strong presence in the British life sciences sector, embedded as investors, vendors and suppliers. For example, Tencent, China’s leading investment house, is an absolutely remarkable investor that takes bold creative investments in some of the most strategically important growing companies in the world, including British companies such as Oxford Nanopore and Congenica. Some British firms would not have flourished if Tencent had not got involved. But we should be worried if British investors cannot make the same investments in similar Chinese firms.
We should review our laissez-faire attitude to Chinese investment, now that the CCP has picked up its pace for dominance in this key life sciences sector. Whatever Tencent’s current governance arrangements, we have seen how the CCP can apply coercion on Chinese companies. How would we feel if, say, China invaded Taiwan, international relations deteriorated, and an investor with considerable China-state connections owned stakes in some of the most strategically important companies in the UK? This is a really important question, and I do not have the answer, but it is a question that the Government need to answer, and I do not know who is going to provide that up-to-date answer that reflects the latest events.
Secondly, we should be aware of the strategic threat around some of these industries—for instance, the genomics industry, which has grown massively after Covid-19. The value of health data now represents a new battlefield for parliamentarians, regulators and national security protectors. The CCP sees genetic data and genomics as a priority industry to target as part of its “Made in China” programme. It is acquiring and exfiltrating huge datasets to power its AI machinery for global surveillance, political control, mass disinformation and military strategic advantage. These datasets and the AI machinery will be key to future warfare and therefore have huge implications for our national security.
Allies in America, Australia and Europe recognise this threat and have sought to control the risk, including by blacklisting Chinese genomics companies, such as BGI Group, in response to human rights concerns and, possibly, participation in the persecution of Uighur Muslims. In the UK, BGI has links to British universities, companies and institutions on a grand scale, for instance with the University of Birmingham, the University of Exeter, the University of York, the University of Plymouth, Cardiff University and Newcastle University.
My fear is that we just do not understand the risks involved in commissioning genomics firms with close ties to the Chinese state—firms that have demonstrated the capability, resources and intent to misuse genetic data gathered from around the world. We do not understand what is being done to help keep this data safe. We seem to be relying on GDPR, and we are ignoring Article 7 of China’s famous national intelligence law, which states that
“organisations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly reminded us, we are at risk from Chinese Government-linked companies, and have sanctioned, for example, Huawei, Beijing Infinite Vision Technology and Hikvision. However, despite calls from MPs, noble Lords and campaigners, in the more sensitive area of human genomics the UK Government do not seem to show the capability to take even minimal action.
There is progress. The Procurement Bill and the National Security Bill present vital opportunities to address the UK’s one-dimensional approach to national security and plug the serious gaps in our coverage. I pay tribute to the Government for statements from the Prime Minister—as she was—and the appointment of Ministers such as Tom Tugendhat and Nus Ghani.
However, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is right: there is no sign of implementation behind that intent. Even if the powers are now on—or heading for—the statute book, I do not see the implementation plans, the resource building, the institutional infrastructure or the expertise recruitment to tackle these complex issues. When I was a Minister and had concerns about national security, I was met with a fuzzy and unclear response, and I am not sure that has changed.
My specific concern is that, despite the warnings of Ken McCallum at GCHQ about tech theft, there is no mechanism for answering the Tencent or the BGI questions. Where is that China policy that should provide the strategic direction? Who are the people who should be thinking through these risks? Which office at BEIS or elsewhere should be responsible? Where is the risk assessment published? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, emphasised the engagement with risk assessment, but who will actually do that risk assessing?
Speeches and laws are all very well, but our relationship with China is changing very quickly and we need agile, expert trade infrastructure so that we can walk the very delicate line that maximises valuable global trade and protects our national interests against a formidable threat.
That is why recommendation 56 in the report is so important. I join the committee in calling on the Government to publish a detailed plan for implementation of the National Security and Investment Act, to provide confidence for overseas investors and to help us understand how investment will protect British interests.
I support recommendation 57, calling on the Government to conduct scenario planning on supply chain vulnerability and identify where action is needed to mitigate the risks. I support recommendation 63 calling on the Government to conduct an impact assessment of the potential consequences of increased political tensions between the UK and China on British businesses or Chinese investment.
We have a lot on, but I urge the Minister that there is not much time to put in place this implementation so that we can avoid the inglorious scramble we saw when Russia invaded Ukraine—and that was a much less important trading partner.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, one of the report’s conclusions is that:
“An increased knowledge and understanding of China—including its languages—within Government, the civil service, and the public more generally will be crucial for both constructive engagement and managing periods of stress.”
The committee calls on the Government to provide greater support for Chinese language teaching and cultural exchange with China—an issue also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages, and my other language interests, as set out in the register.
The government response to this conclusion and recommendation was positive and pointed to the Mandarin Excellence Programme, the MEP, which funds the teaching and learning of Mandarin in state schools, aiming to
“provide an increased pipeline of fluent Mandarin speakers to meet the future business and economic needs of the country.”
Set up in 2016, the MEP has been extremely successful. Indeed, since the Government’s response to the committee’s report was published, the figures have improved still further, with over 8,500 pupils enrolled to date.
GCSE results have been excellent, significantly above the national average, with 91% of the cohort achieving level 5 or above last year, and 72% with level 7 or above. In one north London school with a very mixed intake, the entire cohort achieved level 9. In addition, PGCE recruitment is going well and is back to pre-pandemic levels, which is a lot more than can be said for MFL teacher recruitment more generally.
An independent evaluation of the programme found that it was well-designed and balanced, was achieving its objectives and was having a national impact on the numbers of pupils studying Mandarin over and above those in the MEP schools. Research published earlier this year by Cambridge University described the MEP as an exemplar model which could be replicated for other languages. Even more significantly, in the context of this Select Committee report, it concluded that, if language barriers were removed and more was invested in the teaching of Mandarin, the UK could increase the value of its exports by £5 billion a year.
The UK’s languages deficit has long been acknowledged as one of the barriers to export growth. In the SME sector alone, there is good evidence that language capabilities add 30% in value to success in export growth. The UK’s deficit inhibits both recruitment and employability. The CBI has said that better foreign language skills are critical to increasing the UK’s global competitiveness and ensuring that young people have the high level of cultural awareness that supports a successful career. The Government are to be congratulated on supporting the MEP.
The reason I wanted to speak today, in the context of this report, is to caution against throwing the baby out with the bathwater by responding in a disproportionate way to pressure to ban the Confucius Institutes which support the MEP, and instead to work with Taiwan rather than China for the teaching of Mandarin. These concerns have been expressed by the China Research Group of MPs and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the other place, and several others.
The Confucius Institutes have been described as effectively an arm of the Chinese state, which I have no doubt is a perfectly fair assessment, but the implication that they are having some sort of undue influence over the UK students learning Mandarin with the MEP in our state schools is, I suggest, rather wide of the mark. We should be clear that these worries are not shared by the students, parents, teachers or head teachers involved in the MEP.
Katharine Carruthers, the director of the consortium consisting of University College London’s Faculty of Education and Society, which actually delivers the MEP in conjunction with the British Council, points out that the DfE contract for the programme is with UCL, not the Confucius Institutes. In addition, every school participating in the MEP is responsible for engaging its own teachers locally, in exactly the same way as they employ teachers of Spanish, French or indeed anything else. The teachers are not provided by the Confucius Institutes; they do supply guest teaching assistants from China, but these are supplementary to the core classroom teachers. Some Confucius Institutes, however, also engage with Mandarin teaching in universities, and it is there that there is a potentially legitimate concern that some universities need to exercise caution to ensure that Chinese studies there are not influenced or delivered by Confucius Institutes.
There would be a major practical challenge to the support of the development of Mandarin teaching in schools if there were a switch to Taiwan from China, with obvious significant geopolitical ramifications too. The MEP’s main practical challenge at the moment has been in sustaining pupil visits to China, because of Covid restrictions, but a comprehensive programme of virtual interactive learning with the help of 16 universities right across China has been able to fill some of that gap. It is difficult to see how this could be matched by far more limited Taiwanese institutions and resources.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister two questions. First, will he ensure that his colleagues in government, across various relevant departments, are fully briefed on the importance and success of the Mandarin excellence programme and understand that the role of the Confucius Institutes should be seen in its proper perspective, and that any action should be proportionate and properly targeted, given the actual structure, control and delivery of the programme in schools by UCL and the British Council? Leave the schools alone and let them get on with it—but, at the same time, closer monitoring of the situation in some universities is clearly advisable.
Secondly, I understand that government funding for the MEP has been guaranteed until 2024, with an expectation that it will be extended for a further year to 2025. Will the Minister confirm this and commit to pressing the strong and positive case for continued funding after 2025? This would be good for schools, good for our young people and their future employability and, as the Select Committee report concludes, good for UK-China relationships, not just in security and trade but in the all-important intercultural understanding that underpins all those geopolitical challenges.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, but will express it differently. That difference is contained in the title of the report, which refers to a “void”. We are far short of understanding how to deal with China—and rather worryingly, that pertains to the US as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the next update of the integrated review possibly being delayed until next May. Continuous review is fundamental in today’s fast-moving world. I suggest that a rolling update should become the norm. She also referred to supply chain issues. Having returned from India and the Gulf last week, I believe that there is merit in encouraging countries such as India, and including countries such as Turkey and Brazil, to assist in the diversification of supply chain issues—not just for the UK but globally. This can also help the economies of developing nations.
The Government have become increasingly hawkish towards China and formally designated it a threat to Britain, with the redesignation bringing the UK’s official position towards China closer to its stance on Russia. I reaffirm at the outset that the Uighur situation is an abomination, the Taiwan threat real and regrettable, and the Hong Kong circumstance sad and unbecoming for a state of the importance of China. My overall assessment is that China is becoming more inward-looking and protectionist, which is not helped by constant hostile rhetoric, with the deterioration of relations transitioning from hesitation to deep freeze and China signalling alignment away from being a rule-taker to a rule-maker in the international community.
China is a major trading, investment and supply chain partner, but its economy is at a crossroads, with slowing growth and increased debt and facing a property crash crisis. However, it is currently the world’s second-largest economy and the world’s second-largest public capital market, with the third-largest stock exchange and an IPO market of importance. It is responsible for one-third of global emissions, but is also the world’s largest producer of renewable energy and committed to reaching peak carbon emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2060.
Its strategy is, on the one hand, to make its economy more resilient against external shocks and to fulfil self-sufficiency to counter the hostile geopolitical environment by being more reliant on the economies of scale of its large domestic market and increasing control over supply chains where import dependencies exist, most particularly for food, energy and high-tech inputs. The dual-circulation strategy, the interplay between domestic circulation of production, distribution and consumption by insulating the domestic market, whether in terms of natural resources or technology, is to vertically integrate its production. Chinese decoupling from the US is advancing, with China’s master-plan to enhance its position through third-market engagement available through the belt and road initiative.
It should be remembered that the UK became the first western country to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with a previous US Administration accusing the UK of “constant accommodation” with China. London’s stance towards Beijing has now shifted from the so-called, perceived “golden era” to a complex phase of diplomatic and military tensions and scrutinised economic relations, compounded by US pressure. US national security strategy since the integrated review reflects a world order where great power competition is back in town, representing a profound move away from a not-distant past advocating for a deeper relationship.
The integrated review made an economic and military case when it stated that the PRC is
“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”
and that its military modernisation and assertiveness threaten British interests in the Indo-Pacific. To China, a Cold War mentality of encirclement exists. It believes that London, with its Pacific tilt, is advocating an anti-China diplomatic and military coalition in the Indo-Pacific, with the Government’s U-turn on Huawei, combined with the first deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth II” aircraft carrier to the Pacific, and the trilateral AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the US, escalating the relationship to a new hostile era.
How comfortable is the UK, in reality, in attempting to organise a unified anti-China front behind the Build Back Better World label? The G7 Cornwall meet suggested a differing narrative in the making, but now increasingly there appears acceptance of the US narrative and Washington’s framing of the US-China strategic rivalry as a life or death struggle between democracy and autocracy, treating China as an adversary. There is no question but that the urgent need is to conduct an overall review and analysis of our relationship. We cannot afford to ignore China and must seek to balance the relationship in a manner which draws together shared interests and aligns on underlying challenges, or we will face a steady drumbeat.
All this is a far cry from the economic mantra of a global Britain, with a view held by some that if we deal only with countries that share our values, we will have a limited range of countries with which to engage. Constant barking, confrontation and economic sanctions, including diplomatic restrictions and isolation, can have their place, but I wonder how effective and sustainable they are and whether they are likely to achieve positive outcomes. We should be wide-eyed when taking a tough policy line on China without clearly understanding what the impact, including economic, will be. I have already mentioned that, for me, the key takeaway from the report before us was the use of the word “void”, which encapsulates our lack of understanding of the techniques required to engage in a manner that advances or contains a relationship.
So, how to engage with the Chinese state? Engage we must, but we must certainly lead by example. I fear that, if we fail to do so, it will have consequences for the longer term, including a clash of ideals that would include the likes of Russia and Iran, which are anxious to drive a wedge between our immovable principles. An accommodation must be sought, otherwise I see no alternative other than a slow drumbeat emerging over the horizon. The outcomes of the current party congress, which will set the tone on domestic policies and international trade relations for the next five years, should be analysed with care and taken as a renewed engagement starting point.
I ended a recent contribution with the conclusion that
“a window still exists to pour oil on troubled waters”.
However, I went on to say:
“Western policymakers and diplomats need to up the game and face the gravity of the situation with a supercharged, innovative carrot-and-stick strategy.”—[Official Report, 14/7/22; col. 1629.]
I remain of that view.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. This has been a characteristically serious debate which has done credit to the excellent report comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee under her chairmanship, and indeed under that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We were blessed in this debate with contributions from both those chairs of the committee.
The IRDC is a significant and senior committee of this House, and the delays before its reports are debated are unacceptable. The fact that we made the same appeals when we debated the committee’s report on sub-Saharan Africa, which had been delayed and delayed until we had an opportunity to debate it, springs to mind. I hope that this is the last time there will be such a delay before we are able to debate such a significant report from this committee, because one of the purposes of these debates is not only to hold the Government to account but to inform the whole House of how we conduct that work in holding the Government to account. In that regard, I was struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who rightly highlighted how, in many respects, there is a delicate line to tread in our relationship with China, but in order for us to tread that line, there needs to be the guidance of a clear government strategy. The fact that such a strategy is absent was the underlying proposition of the committee. It struck me when the noble Lord said that as a Minister he sought clarity and that it was “fuzzy and unclear”.
The Government’s response to the committee’s report said:
“The National Security Council continues to provide clear direction for the Government’s China policy. It is supported by the work of the Integrated Review Implementation Group on China”.
Can the Minister tell us why the National Security Council was abolished by the current Prime Minister, Liz Truss? I understand that it has now been replaced by a Cabinet sub-committee, which will not provide the clear direction that is necessary. What is the current situation? Is there a current situation? If not, it highlights the void not just in government strategy but in government operation. We cannot afford that as a country.
This is my opportunity to state on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches that what the Conservative Government are doing to our international reputation at the moment is just unacceptable. During this debate, I had a message on my phone from a good friend of mine who served in the United States Cabinet, who was in shock when he woke up to see the news from the UK. He was bemoaning—and sympathising—the fact that we are a laughing stock. He said: “The UK is too important to be laughed at.” That is from a former senior US official. I agree with him.
This debate on this topic really must be the opportunity to start providing more clarity on our way forward for UK relations with China. The committee highlighted—as have the contributions today—a whole series of areas where that strategy is necessary. It highlighted that there has been a shift, but it is unclear where that shift is to. We are, theoretically, currently in year 7 of the golden decade announced in 2015. Whether this golden decade is now in deep freeze or is still government policy for trade and development, I do not yet know. The noble Viscount mentioned the Asian Development Bank; can the Minister clarify whether our support for that is still categorised under overseas development assistance or whether that has been cut? George Osborne said during that visit in 2015—like my noble friend Lord Teverson, I was there in the hall, but I did not have the opportunity of shaking the President’s hand—that
“No economy in the west is as open to Chinese investment as the UK.”
Is it still? What is the Government’s intent for that? The Government’s response to the committee did not provide a great deal of clarity on that.
When the House debated the committee report on sub-Saharan Africa, so many areas combined with regards to our relationship with emerging markets and emerging countries, as well as the need for clarity on China. It is an absolute fact that, in the absence of a clear direction for our relationship with emerging markets and countries in Africa, China will fill that void. In the absence of a clear strategy, understanding and stability in our relationship with China, other countries will not see us as a reliable partner either.
We recognise that China’s development and rise has been remarkable, lifting millions of its citizens out of poverty and single-handedly having a major impact on overall human development. However, we cannot use just one indicator alone. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Bethell, and others have highlighted these issues with our trading relationship—I will return to that in a moment. Over this period, growth in UK-China trade has been marked, but it is not equal growth, because the UK now has a trade deficit with China in goods of more than £40 billion. That is at an unprecedented scale in our trading history. Under this Government, this deficit has grown. We are now in the unhappy position that trade with autocracies has risen under this Government, but trade with democracies has fallen. This is not good for our national security, nor is it good for our resilience as far as our own industry is concerned.
This report is about how the UK Government now respond to these concerns. While recognising China’s growth in the positive areas, my party and others in this debate have recognised some of the concerns, including China’s challenges to the international liberal order, such as at the UN Human Rights Council. I have a little more sympathy with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, than with—if he will forgive my saying so—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The issue about rules, values and standards is not necessarily that we impose them, but that we work with allies on what we consider to be the most beneficial areas. If they are unclear on our approach in some of these areas, an alternative approach will become the norm. From data transfer to e-commerce, regulatory reforms, privacy, and human rights within supply chains, we have been at the forefront, with consensus, of establishing some of these norms and rules. There is, in many areas, a competing narrative with which, if we are not robust, they will be filled. On human rights abuses, which have been referred to, we have debated them repeatedly and, unfortunately, will have to continue to do so.
We have heard in the debate about the aggressive posturing towards Taiwan, including the latest address by President Xi in the congress. A further concern is surveillance technology, which is used at home in China as a tool for suppression but has been bought here in the UK and by others abroad without the level of reliance on a set of standards, which we believe would be right for the use of surveillance technology. Of course, we have seen a regrettable and increasing trend of interference in civic debate in other countries—and, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem said, here in the UK, just within the last 48 hours.
We strongly support the need for a comprehensive China strategy but, in our view, a comprehensive industrial strategy too. They are intertwined. I hope that we will see some clarity on this soon from a new Government. It will mean that the UK has to have a significant review of China’s preferential market access in a whole sweep of areas, from foreign direct investment screening to pension fund investments. It is not acceptable that local authorities and public sectors are not aware, when investing in a Chinese-indexed market, whether their investments are in regions and enterprises in China that are conducting significant human rights abuses. There needs to be much more clarity in this area. I have repeatedly asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether any of the preferential agreements signed in 2015 have been reviewed in light of the grotesque human rights abuses, and the Government have failed to provide any clarity as to whether they have.
In an industrial strategy, we need a review of supply-side security. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others are absolutely right. On concerns with regard to Taiwan, how resilient is the UK if China seeks to weaponise our trade deficit in certain key sectors? We have seen this within the domestic UK market with regard to chip supplies, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. Why has not the UK opened up discussions about the equivalent of a US chips Act? Why is the United States looking at this in a strategic way, while the UK has, as the committee put it, a complete void in that regard? We must be willing to cease research co-operation and technology sharing if our Chinese colleagues are unable to provide adequate reciprocity and transparency in the regulatory framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was absolutely correct to raise the issue of data. I am genuinely concerned about the Government’s current approach. He rightly said that China has access from government officials. The UK has now signalled that we will be leaving GDPR principles, but there is no clarity as to their successor. In some of our key sectors, the service sector and financial reform, this is critical, and I hope that the Minister has a response in his remarks.
I close on Hong Kong. It is a necessity for the UK to audit UK-based assets owned by CCP officials, state-owned enterprises and Hong Kong officials. We need to review bilateral FDI with Hong Kong relations. I hope that the Minister can say that the global human rights sanction regime is now being considered very carefully with regard to officials in Hong Kong. All those areas are vital, and we need to signal that we are now in the process of considering UK resilience in our relationship with China, in case of disruption. It is not a signal that we are seeking to remove ourselves entirely from our partnership with China or indeed to have, in certain areas, a weakening of the positive cultural relationship with the people of China. However, it is necessary for the United Kingdom to be resilient and to stand up for the rules, standards and values that we helped shape and should invest in, and we should work on with our partners.
Finally, I could not agree more strongly with my noble friend Lord Teverson. Many of the countries in emerging markets and developing nations that are looking at the UK and China at the same time see that the UK has stepped back. We have slashed support with very little notice, and there is a lack of stability and reliability in our relationship with them. That is creating a new void which China will fill, and that will be to the United Kingdom’s long-term detriment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by commenting that we have of course all been looking at our mobile phones during this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the Prime Minister’s resignation earlier today is not a matter for debate now, but I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we should not underestimate the impact of the Government’s actions on our global reputation and credibility. It will come back to haunt us.
I very much welcome this report, and certainly the excellent introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We have discussed elements of the report in previous debates, and I repeat what we said then: this is about making a very clear case for a consistent written strategy setting out the Government’s security relationship with China. As long as Ministers maintain their policy of ambiguity, we cannot be confident that they are properly balancing the need for economic engagement with the importance of the UK’s interests and values.
Unfortunately, as noble Lords mentioned, the response to the report gave no further indication of a wide-ranging strategy—far from it. Instead, there were only piecemeal points about the UK’s interests and values. It focused on things such as the importance of avoiding strategic dependency on China. The Government argued that the National Security Council provided clear direction for their China policy, and that it was supported by the work of the integrated review. I too welcome the fact that events have overtaken us and the integrated review will be re-examined in the light of Russian aggression. I accept that that does not undermine the case that the committee has made. The fact that events have overtaken us does not undermine the fundamental case for a clear strategy in dealing with China.
As the noble Baroness said in her contribution and in her follow-up letter to the Minister, ambiguity and uncertainty are
“damaging to businesses and detrimental to our partnerships and alliances in the region.”
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about those alliances, but unless we are clear, they will not know what we stand for. The noble Baroness wrote that it was unclear how the Government intended to balance human rights issues with the economic relationship with China, and how they
“will prioritise when these considerations clash.”
Amanda Milling said:
“We will uphold our values and protect our national security while promoting a positive and reliable economic relationship”.
As I have asked in previous debates, can the Minister say what exactly is the extensive programme of engagement with UK businesses to ensure that our policy is fully understood? The noble Baroness was absolutely right: the ambiguity continues to damage both our business interests and our political interests. Noble Lords will want to hear some concrete examples from the Minister, not just vague words.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, mentioned the language deficit. It is a sad fact that, under the Conservative Government, the number of Mandarin speakers in the Foreign Office has fallen to a pitiful 14, the deployment of personnel to the strategically vital Pacific region has shrunk, and the often-mentioned China strategy is nowhere to be seen. The resultant drift and confusion undermine our position on the world stage, leave our allies unable to rely on British support and risk our technological and industrial advantages, while Chinese companies single out emerging technological advantages in areas such as semiconductors and biotech. Let me be clear. Labour will take a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach to China, standing firm in defence of human rights, national security and international law while, as my noble friend, whose name I have forgotten—I am sorry.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I had a mental block; it is age, I fear. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone urged, we will engage with China where it is in our interests to do so, particularly, as noble Lords have highlighted, in the global challenges we face that we cannot address unless we work with it, such as climate change, trade and especially global health. For years, the Government have turned a blind eye to human rights and national security concerns. Now they are divided and have no strategy, lurching between U-turns on issues such as Huawei and nuclear power.
In government, Labour will carry out a complete audit of UK-China relationships so that we can ensure the relationship reflects our interests and values and set a consistent strategy for the long term. China remains crucial to addressing those global challenges I have mentioned and is deeply integrated into the global economy. We will engage with China on the basis of our national interest and those clear principles but will not be afraid to speak out on human rights, particularly in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. It is simply wrong that China has brought sanctions against UK parliamentarians for raising those concerns. I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
The brutal campaign of oppression in Xinjiang is a scar on the conscience of the world. In this House we have consistently raised the plight of the Uighur people, which the UN has said constitutes a crime against humanity and which our Parliament has voted to recognise as genocide. We support absolute, strong action, including a ban on cotton produced with forced labour, and the extension of human rights sanctions against the individuals responsible. As part of that strategy, a Labour Government will increase our independence in critical national infrastructure and will not repeat the sort of mistakes the Government have made in the past, particularly over nuclear power.
However, as the report and noble Lords have mentioned, it is really important that we underline our soft power activity, particularly the British Council and the BBC, which are key elements of an overall integrated strategy. I noticed in today’s Guardian an article showing how the Chinese Communist Party was using influencers in social media—it spreads without us even noticing that it is happening. What is our strategy in response to that? I do not see one. It is really important that we work cross-departmentally and across government to have that absolutely clear strategy.
As the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hannay, mentioned, we cannot do this on our own: it is really important that we work with our allies to provide real alternatives to China’s finance and investment in the developing world. Again, we have sort of turned a blind eye to that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is also absolutely right to mention the Commonwealth; our response to that has been minimal. In fact, as noble Lords have mentioned, we have seen how we have cut our influence by going to 0.5%. We use a statistic such as 0.5% and 0.7% but those bilateral programmes, particularly in Africa, were cut overnight. There was no plan or strategy—no understanding of the impact. Instead, they were cut straightaway. The speed of those cuts, not just the amount, was incredibly dangerous.
I repeat what has been said about the importance of our relationship with Taiwan. We absolutely support and want to see dialogue and peaceful moves to address those issues across the Taiwan Strait. We have been clear about our serious concern about China’s increasingly aggressive actions towards Taiwan and the attempts to intimidate its democratic leaders. We need to be clear about our support for that beacon of democracy. We also need to understand—I have said this about the global challenges—that we are not challenging the recognition issues that we addressed, but it is important that the globe does not miss out on the expertise that Taiwan has developed, particularly on global health. We should ensure that it is included in our discussions wherever possible.
I conclude by addressing the discussion this afternoon in the other place on the Urgent Question on the events in the Chinese consulate in Manchester. We had the Urgent Question repeat here, and I made the point to the noble Lord that it was absolutely essential that Ministers and the Foreign Secretary took responsibility and communicated the Government’s concern about these actions. The fact that it was left to officials and the ambassador was not summoned was a disgrace. It is time for the government to be very clear. Jesse Norman said in the other place that the ambassador is not in this country. We have seen clear evidence of what has happened in Manchester, and we cannot tolerate that those sorts of people who conduct themselves in that manner should be allowed to stay in this country for a day longer.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for tabling this debate and for her committee’s work, as well as for her introductory remarks. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
Last year in our integrated review, the UK Government assessed that China’s increasing assertiveness and growing impact on many aspects of our lives will be one of the defining geopolitical factors of the 21st century. This is, therefore, a key and timely debate.
In line with the IRDC’s report, I will cover the UK’s approach to China, our trade relationship, regional security, and the importance of working with our allies and partners, and I shall do my best to answer as many of the questions that were raised as possible.
The global geopolitical context has changed greatly in the last year, and in response the Prime Minister has commissioned an update of the integrated review. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has threatened our collective security and stability, and it has had an acute impact on global economic resilience, supply chains and energy security. We will continue to press China to use its relationship with Vladimir Putin to push for an end to his war, rather than condoning or excusing his actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, made the point that China’s influence on Russia is considerable. There is no doubt that that is true, so we continue to engage with China at every level—in Beijing, in London and at the UN—to make it clear that the world is watching what it chooses to say and do. Of course, we condemn any military support to Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we expect China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to uphold its commitment to the UN charter. Without going into detail, I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on China’s anxiety about Russia’s potential use of strategic nuclear weapons.
As the Foreign Secretary recently made clear in his speech in Singapore, it remains a top priority for the UK to pursue deeper engagement with our partners in the Indo-Pacific region. China is a major global actor as a G20 member, with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This Government are committed to doing more to adapt to China’s growing impact and influence. As we do so, our policy will be defined by our national interests, particularly our sovereignty, security and prosperity. It is in our interest to have a mature and robust relationship with China in order to manage disagreements, defend our freedoms and co-operate where our interests align.
One of the greatest strengths in our relationship with China is the link between the people of our countries. It is worth emphasising that the British-Chinese diaspora play a key role in our communities and culture. We continue to welcome hundreds of thousands of Chinese students to the UK and work to ensure that they are treated as well here as British and other international students are. International research collaboration, including within our universities, is central to the UK’s position as a science superpower. However, as a number of noble Lords suggested, we will not accept collaborations that compromise our national security, and we work closely with universities, funding bodies and industry to protect our higher education and research sector.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who raised Confucius Institutes in particular and asked what the UK is doing about them, the Government obviously take seriously any concerns about the operation of international organisations at UK educational centres. Like all similar bodies, the Confucius Institutes need to operate transparently and with a full commitment to our values of openness and freedom of expression. As with any international collaboration, universities have a responsibility to ensure that any partnership with a Confucius Institute is managed appropriately and that the right due diligence is in place. We encourage providers with any concerns whatever to contact the Government directly.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of engaging China on the global issue of climate change, and they were absolutely right to do so. The committee rightly observes that we cannot deliver our global climate goals without engaging with China. It is just not feasible; it is not possible. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and the world’s largest investor in renewable energy, China plays a critical role. In particular, we are working with China and other financiers of international coal to accelerate momentum and ambition for the global transition from coal to clean energy through our COP 26 energy transition campaign. As a consequence, and on the back of very extensive diplomacy in the run-up to COP 26, we were able to have an influence on China’s position. Noble Lords will know that China has committed to net zero by 2060 and has said that its intention, and its policy, is to see emissions peak by 2030, the end of this decade. China also committed to ending the financing of overseas coal, which we also pressed hard for in the context of our presidency of COP.
Scientific collaboration also plays a key role in mitigating climate change. The UK Government supported work by meteorological experts in both countries to model extreme climate change impacts around the world. We are increasingly working with China at the diplomatic level: first, to support efforts to secure an ambitious outcome for the CBD COP 15 in Montreal, at the end of this year; and, secondly, to follow up on commitments that we secured from China—quite late in the day, as it happens—to join other countries that signed the Glasgow leaders’ declaration, the commitment to end deforestation by the end of this decade.
Even more importantly, we secured a commitment from China’s biggest commodity trader, COFCO, to align its purchasing criteria with 1.5 degrees and our efforts to break the link between commodity production and deforestation. It was COFCO coming to the table that allowed us to encourage countries such as Brazil, under President Bolsonaro, to sign up to a commitment that they were absolutely not willing to sign up to that point. There are numerous ways in which we are seeking to work with China on climate change and the broader environmental challenge we face.
As an open economy, the UK Government welcome foreign trade and investment to support growth and jobs, including from China. However, we will not accept commercial activity that compromises our national security or values, and we have safeguards in place that enable us to engage with Chinese investors and businesses with increasing confidence.
The National Security and Investment Act came into force in January 2022. It is not specific to China and applies to all investors in the UK, regardless of nationality. We will not hesitate to use the Act’s powers to intervene if and where necessary—including to block the most concerning acquisitions. The Act’s annual report and final orders document the use of NSI powers to date, including to block two acquisitions by Chinese companies. In May this year, a package of measures came into force to update the UK’s export control regime. This enhanced our military end-use controls and added China to the list of destinations to which those controls must now apply. These changes strengthen our ability to prevent exports and address threats to national security and human rights.
In different ways, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Alton, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referenced the controversy over Huawei, which rightly dominated the news for some time in the year before last. On 13 October this year, the Secretary of State for DCMS issued a designation notice to Huawei and a designated vendor direction to 35 telecom providers. This gives 12 specific restrictions to telecom providers in their use of Huawei. The Secretary of State has decided that these legal controls are necessary and proportionate to our national security risks. The UK is now on a path towards complete removal of Huawei from the UK’s 5G networks by the end of 2027.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also asked about Hikvision. I needed to check, but we continue to make clear our concern about human rights violations in Xinjiang—which I will come to in a few moments—including the use of mass surveillance and the technology used to facilitate it. We take the security of our citizens and establishments extremely seriously and have a range of measures, some of which I have just identified, to scrutinise the integrity of those arrangements.
The committee rightly identifies the risks to trade and investment and our supply chains in today’s increasingly interconnected world. We recognise that China has clearly set out to use its influence in the global economy to pursue its broader foreign policy objectives. We monitor this closely and are working to strengthen the UK’s critical supply chain resilience and avoid strategic dependency. This includes international collaboration with allies and partners to discourage trade restrictions and coercive measures.
My noble friend Lord Bethell emphasised this particularly well. To him I just say—he may even have been part of this—that BEIS launched the UK’s critical minerals strategy in July, which sets out measures to improve the resilience of critical mineral supply chains. Obviously, supply chains are complex and markets are volatile, with most critical minerals sourced from just a small handful of countries. China is a big player, for reasons that noble Lords have already identified.
I will move on to respond to comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who talked about British investment partnerships. Through BII, we are providing a positive development finance offer in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world. Our offer is characterised by high standards, transparency and reliability. It supports the Build Back Better initiative—I hesitate to use the term—specifically as an alternative to the belt and road initiative. With a particular focus on climate finance and green infrastructure, we are helping developing and emerging countries in the Indo-Pacific meet their financing needs for infrastructure and enterprise.
The Government have deepened economic ties with our partners in the Indo-Pacific region in the last two years. We have signed free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand and a digital economy agreement with Singapore, and we continue to make progress towards a new free trade agreement with India. We are also now in the second and final phase of accession to the CPTPP. By acceding to the CPTPP, the UK will join a valuable network of countries committed to the international rules and norms that underpin free trade. Meanwhile, as an ASEAN dialogue partner, and the only European country to have been given such status, we recognise the key role that ASEAN plays. We have made clear our full support for the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific.
The committee rightly recognised the importance of working with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and beyond with regard to China. We speak to those partners on a regular basis to understand their approaches towards China, their hopes and concerns and more. There is much common ground between us; we share many of the same concerns. We and our international partners have a clear message: China must live up to its international responsibilities.
A number of noble Lords rightly referenced the horrors in Xinjiang—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has raised the issue many times with me in our various exchanges in the Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also spoke powerfully about the issue, as did a number of other noble Lords. Clearly, China must be held to the same human rights standards as all other members of the international community. The UK has led international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations through the UN and through our sanctions regime and measures to ensure that no UK organisations are complicit in these violations through their supply chains.
Given the gravity of the recent UN High Commissioner’s report, which found that China has carried out serious human rights violations—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, possible crimes against humanity in the area—it is important that UN members are given an opportunity to consider those findings fully. On 6 October, the UK brought a vote to the United Nations Human Rights Council requesting a vote on the report. We did not succeed—the vote did not pass—and China successfully managed to stifle debate temporarily. However, we are convinced through our efforts that that will not endure and that we will be able to ensure that the report and its findings are properly digested and responded to in that key UN context.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about those Members of Parliament in the UK who have been sanctioned by China, and pay tribute to them. Those sanctions are not only unwarranted but completely unacceptable, and we have provided, as noble Lords will know, guidance and support to those sanctioned by China, including a specialist briefing from relevant government departments on such things as cybersecurity.
Just to move to Hong Kong, China’s national security law has undoubtedly stifled opposition and, more than that, criminalised dissent. In response, the UK has declared China to be in a state of ongoing non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration. As noble Lords commented, we also introduced a bespoke immigration route for British national overseas status holders and their immediate family members. The UK will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, as agreed in the Sino-British joint declaration.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who asked why the Prime Minister had scrapped the National Security Council—I hope that I have attached the question to the right noble Lord. My understanding is that she replaced it rather than scrapped it; she replaced it with a foreign policy and security council. From my understanding, there is no difference in function, so we are talking about semantics and a label, as opposed to anything meaningful.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that clarification; perhaps the Minister could write to Members who took part. I looked at No. 10 Downing Street’s briefing on the new Cabinet sub-committees. It is a markedly different committee which includes trade; it is not simply a change of title with the same definition—as I understand it, but I am happy for him to write to me with more information, because it is important.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I doubt I am qualified to get into a scrap on this issue, but my understanding is that there is nothing that the NSC was doing that is not done within the new council. But I shall seek clarity on the issue.
Regional partnerships are especially important in defence and security. We are deepening our engagement with Indo-Pacific partners bilaterally, multilaterally and with smaller groups of like-minded partners. The Five Power Defence Arrangements, where we work together with Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore, reached their 50th anniversary last year. The AUKUS defence partnership with Australia and the US also strengthens regional peace and stability, and the UK has responded positively to the requests of our partners to build their capacity in maritime security. The deployment of the UK carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific last year, where it engaged with 40 countries, demonstrated our commitment to partnership. Two Royal Navy offshore patrol vessels, now stationed permanently in the region, are further deepening this partnership and supporting capacity-building.
The former Prime Minister—my apologies: she is the current Prime Minister—has commissioned an update of the integrated review to be completed by the end of the year. That integrated review will take account of and reflect the dramatic changes that have happened as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the priorities within the integrated review will remain the same: we are not looking at any dramatic shift.
I am so sorry, but I cannot read the names of who asked me certain questions; I apologise if I attribute them to the wrong noble Lords.
On Taiwan, the UK has a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. As we have always said, the issue must be settled by the people on both sides of the strait through constructive dialogue, without any threat or use of force or coercion. On the issue of visits to Taiwan by western politicians—this is an example of where I cannot read the name of the noble Lord who asked the question—and specifically the visit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, it is our view that China’s military exercises were inherently destabilising. They form part of a pattern of escalatory Chinese activity over recent months which includes a growing number of military flights near Taiwan. These are not the actions of a responsible international actor. They undermine peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is clearly a matter of global concern. The UK’s long-standing policy on Taiwan remains exactly the same. We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but we have a strong unofficial relationship based on deep and growing ties in an increasingly wide range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values.
On the issue of academic freedom, particularly in relation to students from China here in the UK—a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—academic freedom and freedom of speech are obviously fundamental values to us in the UK. They are cornerstones of the UK’s world-class higher education system and central to a student’s experience. Universities have specific legal responsibilities to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law. Academics, students and visiting speakers must therefore be empowered to challenge ideas and discuss controversial subjects. If institutions or individuals feel under pressure to compromise on those values, to compromise on academic freedom or freedom of expression, we strongly encourage them to come to the Government and provide us with that information.
It is essential to maintain the UK’s place at the heart of an unrivalled global network of economic, diplomatic and security partnerships—partnerships that deliver for British businesses and British people. That is why the Government continue to invest in China expertise and Mandarin language skills across government and our international network. This expertise, coupled with a deeper understanding of the wider Indo-Pacific region, will be even more important as China’s international assertiveness increases and our ties to the region continue to grow.
Before I come to the end, I want to address recent events in Manchester, which we discussed yesterday on the back of an Urgent Question. However, the Minister in the other place has since said more on the subject. Like other noble Lords, I have seen the consul general’s Sky News interview, which has been referenced in the debate today, in which he claimed that it was his duty to get involved in a physical altercation with a protestor. I would add, as my colleague in the other place did, that no matter how absurd those comments may appear to us, it remains important that we follow due process and await details from the police investigation before determining whatever actions we should take.
However, as the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories, Jesse Norman, set out in the other place, we will take further action without any hesitation, depending on the outcome of that investigation. Our ambassador in Beijing will deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we will send a public message to the Hong Kong community in the UK. I was asked by a noble Lord—again, I sincerely apologise that I cannot read my own writing to see who it was—when that police investigation is likely to end. I am afraid I cannot give a specific date, but I will seek to extract one from the authorities and to share it if I can.
To conclude, the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report makes a valuable contribution to this hugely important topic. We welcome the committee’s scrutiny of our approach to China as we manage disagreements, defend our freedoms and co-operate where our interests align. I end by thanking my noble friend Lady Anelay once again for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I asked a number of questions—eight in particular—which have not been answered. I recognise that the Minister cannot answer everything in the course of the debate, but I did ask if he could give an assurance that he would write to answer those questions he was not able to deal with.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise if I did not answer all eight questions. I am quite sure I did not; I will check Hansard and will certainly follow up on whatever questions remain unanswered.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who spoke in this debate and contributed information based on their own expertise. They did so with a great depth and breadth of information, which has advanced the debate. Of course, I also thank my noble friend the Minister. I hope his offer to respond to all the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, may be extended to other Members who have spoken today. I appreciate that the officials sitting behind him will be thinking, “Oh no”—or something rather stronger—but I know that the questions were asked with a genuine commitment to ensuring that our relationship with China is on the right track, so we would be grateful for responses to them.
It is always said that the first duty of any Government is to ensure that the defence of their country is secured. Of course, that includes economic security. At the beginning of the debate, I referred to my right honourable friend Liz Truss as Prime Minister, but during the course of the debate she has resigned.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
As leader of the party—and ipso facto, et cetera. It is a brutal world we inhabit, as we know, but that is the nature of democracy, however it is defined.
I refer to my right honourable friend having expressed the view that the approach to China in the integrated review was no longer the full description. Instead of being a systemic competitor, she recognised it in its true state as a “threat” to the security of this nation. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister make that important differentiation between the description of the Chinese people and the description of the CCP as it runs the Government of China. It is important that we always all remember that. I hope that whoever succeeds my right honourable friend as leader of the party, and potentially Prime Minister, espouses the same views on China as expressed by Liz Truss.
My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to our visit just two weeks ago to the Gulf—to Bahrain and Qatar—and the fact that we learned there about the joint exercises shortly to be carried out by China, Russia and Iran in the region. It was a real example of “in your face” diplomacy by them. We should always remember that China likes to show what its power really is.
We saw a series of alliances, agreements and co-operation which works very well in that region. I put on record today my thanks to the Governments of Bahrain and Qatar for their hospitality. I also thank our UK ambassadors in Bahrain and Qatar for putting together such a really exhaustive—and exhausting—programme, which enabled us to see so much of the defence co-operation by our allies and friends in that area. I also thank our serving personnel there and those of the United States Air Force, whom we also met.
I mention this in a little more detail than other matters simply because it comes back to the matter of trust. The work we are doing in the Gulf, which is crucial to the security of this country, is possible only because of the way in which so many countries—France, countries across western Europe, the United States and others in the whole of the Middle East region—trust us and work with us to secure what is also our security. Therefore, I reflect very carefully on what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, about the importance of Governments remembering that they need to retain international trust if they wish to secure their objectives.
I hope that the objective of our Government continues to be to trade with China, because with its economic heft we need to do so, but to do it in a way that in no way undermines our adherence to the core values that have made this country a great place to live, and to ensure that it remains a great place to live for future generations, who must be watching with some concern today. They need to know that they have a safe future.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Arts: Energy Cost Support
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the rising cost of energy, what support they will provide for arts venues, museums, libraries and other community spaces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My department, the DCMS, has engaged with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that the energy bill relief scheme is supporting businesses and other non-domestic customers, such as arts venues, museums, libraries and other community spaces. The support provides a discount on gas and electricity unit prices applied to energy usage initially between 1 October this year and 31 March next year. DCMS continues to liaise with all the different sectors under our portfolio to support BEIS’s three-month review of the scheme to determine what support might be needed.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the arts and cultural sector emerged late out of Covid and some spaces are still recovering. In terms of current problems, to take the example of theatres, threefold and more increases in energy bills are being reported, even allowing for government support. Apart from the clear concern of arts and community spaces about getting through the winter, what reassurance can the Minister give that they will not fall off a cliff edge at the end of March, bearing in mind that energy cost for many spaces is not all about heating but includes other significant year-round usage?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government fully realise that after March some organisations may need assistance. One of the reasons that we have a three-month review, which started in October, is to see how effective the scheme is and to look out for unintended consequences and perverse incentives.. After the review, we want to make sure that we target those organisations that really need help after March—some of the more vulnerable ones that we may not have picked up initially—and know how best to help them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare an interest: I am a trustee of two galleries and my daughter works for V&A Dundee. Museums and galleries have to keep to specific temperatures and light levels to ensure the protection and security of valuable collections, so reducing energy consumption is just not an option. Modern Two, part of the National Galleries of Scotland group, has closed due to rising energy costs, and other galleries and museums are warning of closures. What support is the DCMS going to provide to protect our cultural assets from cuts and closures beyond the end of the six-month energy price cap? Does the Minister think that closed galleries are a reasonable price for the public to pay for the Government’s incompetent mismanagement of our national economy?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My department is in conversations with museums and others and is fully aware. I am sure that many noble Lords will recognise that my department does not just wait until it is contacted by the sector; we are in constant dialogue with different parts of the sector. One of the things we have been discussing is how we protect vulnerable collections and what sort of extra protection might be needed.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
The cultural sector needs support. Alongside the effects of the pandemic and now the rising cost of energy there is also the knock-on effect of inflation, which inevitably means that fewer people are able to afford to visit art venues which involve paying. Does the Minister, whom I welcome to his role, not agree that part of the solution is a reduction in VAT on tickets? This would help venues to absorb some of their increased running costs. A temporary VAT reduction was introduced during the pandemic. The sector is facing another crisis. Does the Minister agree that the same remedy should be applied?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Officials in my department are constantly talking to the sector to understand the best way to support it, and we want to listen to it rather than assume that the Government have the best answer. One thing that is quite clear—I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise it—is that during Covid we had a Cultural Recovery Fund. We continue to talk to all areas of the sector to make sure that people still have access, up and down the country, whatever their background and wherever they live, to the rich culture of this country. It is very important, especially during difficult times.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made some very important points. Many people have been suggesting that galleries and libraries could be places of refuge where people could go to find comfort. If that is the case, will the Minister make proper arrangements to ensure that galleries are introduced to the people who go to them and that they get some cultural benefit as well as physical warmth?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In a recent conversation with my officials, we were talking about how galleries, museums and other community spaces may well be used this year by people who do not normally attend them. I do not want to overplay this card, but it may well bring a new audience to libraries. Central government needs to be careful because local government is very fierce and tells us that it knows what is best for local communities, so we are working at local level with galleries, museums, libraries et cetera to look at whether they can be warm hubs or whether there are other solutions.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, at the height of the pandemic, local arts centres demonstrated their commitment to their communities by pivoting business to meet their needs by supporting education catch-up and health and well-being and even providing food banks. It is likely that they will attempt to do the same in the current crisis, opening as warm banks and possibly offering well-being activities too. What will the Government do to incentivise and encourage partnership working between local authorities, statutory services, the voluntary sector and the cultural sector to maximise this kind of much-needed provision and make sure that it is advertised and available to the people who need it most?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about partnerships. Government partners, the sector itself or even individual galleries cannot do this alone; we have to work in a clear partnership. It is quite clear that public libraries are run by local authorities, but some are run by local communities and are a great example of civil society. We want to make sure that we understand the picture. We are talking to local authorities, the sector, the Arts Council and UK Theatre, for example, to understand the granularity of these needs and the best way to help people during this difficult period. We know very well the role that the cultural sector has played in the past. It will continue to play a role and we hope it will be open to new audiences.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Albert Hall. I would like to ask the Minister to grant it and other such institutions the same sympathy and consultation facilities that were given by the commendable acts the Government took to help us during Covid.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord—or was it my noble friend? I could not see him—
Lord Kamall (Con)
Ah, it was my noble friend; I thank noble Lords. Next time I will bring my rear-view mirror. One of things we have to be very careful about are those organisations that are commercial but also receive taxpayer or lottery funding. It is important that we understand which sectors needs support. We are constantly in conversation with individual venues, and the umbrella organisations of different sectors. We want to understand how the plan that we have put in place works and where it might not work, so we can look at the plans beyond March next year.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I can assure the Minister that the entire sector needs support at the moment. Of course he is right that choices have to be made. We are well aware that some of those choices may be very uncomfortable and will be threatening to a number of sectors. Could he reassure the House that the DCMS will fight the corner of the cultural sector when these challenges come forward? It can look very successful from in front, because it is a very successful aspect of our economy, but behind the scenes it is really struggling and it will need all the support it can get from the department.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about the importance of our cultural sector to our economy, but also to the social life and well-being of so many people across the country. Sometimes that cannot be measured in simple econometric terms. I remember, from my time as Health Minister, how much social prescribing was helpful. Cultural organisations and individuals play a role in well-being, and help people get through difficult situations. I assure her that I am so excited to have this job because I am now the Minister for Civil Society—my dream job. I want to work right across the sector, with the heritage sector, the museum sector and others, to champion them, not only to the outside world but also within government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, rising energy bills are affecting businesses across the economy, but I am glad to hear my noble friend recognise the particular role that cultural organisations play in community life. We saw that recently, after the death of Her late Majesty the Queen, when all the major cultural organisations along the South Bank opened their doors—and their loos—to the many people who wished to queue to pay their respects. Some larger organisations have formed consortia to buy their energy up front and in bulk. Have the Government given any thought to encouraging smaller organisations to see how to do this? Might there be a role for the Arts Council or other umbrella organisations to negotiate better deals on their behalf?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I take great pleasure in thanking my noble friend, my predecessor, for his question. I pay tribute, once again, to him for the work he did during the Queen’s funeral, working together across the sector and with the cultural organisations in the examples he gave. This scheme is led by BEIS. We have to work very hard to make sure that BEIS understands any specific needs of the cultural sector, and those of community organisations and civil society. I do not know about the specific example he gives, but it seems very sensible and I will take it back to the department.
Unemployment Figures
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made as to whether unemployment figures provide an accurate picture of the situation in the labour market.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, no specific assessment has been made. DWP monitors a range of labour market statistics to understand the labour market situation, including the overall employment rate and economic inactivity rate as well as unemployment. The unemployment rate is accurate and independently produced by the Office for National Statistics. We welcome the fact that unemployment is at its lowest level in 50 years, but we are also expanding the help and opportunities for the growing number of economically inactive people.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but the statistics do not properly identify the approximately 9 million inactive people—yes, 9 million—who are ready and willing to work but are unable to do so because of caring responsibilities, mental or physical illness, because they have been let down by back-to-work programmes and failed by the Government or because of changes in the world of work. Since the pandemic, the number has grown by 640,000, whereas in other similar economies the number is declining. What are the Government doing to properly identify and address this inactivity? With low unemployment and many job vacancies, they should be doing this as part of the growth agenda.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord on the points he raises and the fact that there are 9 million economically inactive people. We have a breakdown of the groups that they fall in. We know that 1.7 million are looking after family at home, and 2.5 million are people with sickness issues. That is why we are increasing our efforts to increase the support we give. The noble Lord points out that these people have very complex issues; there may be more than one or two reasons for them not working. I am very pleased that we were able to look at the noble Lord’s son’s report on this and, in fact, give it to the Secretary of State, because she is very keen to read and understand it.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s apprenticeship schemes and the support that the Government gave to businesses. Apprenticeships are of course an important route into employment, particularly for some of our young. However, as my noble friend will know, the numbers of apprenticeships have fallen quite significantly. What are the Government doing to support young people, and to identify the barriers that businesses are experiencing, to ensure that these schemes can continue?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I believe that there are a number of activities that the Department for Education is working on to ensure that employers take full use of apprenticeships, and that the National Careers Service and Jobcentre Plus are also encouraging young people to take up apprenticeships. They have a big impact on their lives and are in fact some of the best ways to enter the world of work.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on a particular sector which is very adversely affected in terms of economic inactivity: that is, older women, particularly ethnic minority women, who suffer from digital exclusion? Is she able to say what conversations her department is having with employers to facilitate training to bring back into the workplace older women who now, due to the Covid changeovers in working practices, have become excluded due to technology?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I sometimes worry about using the term “older workers”, but rising economic inactivity in the over-50s is contributing to shortages in the labour market. We are working with employers: one example in terms of technology and skills is the STEM returners work task force that we have introduced. In that way, we are trying to upskill people who have left the workforce and get their skills back on STEM so they can go into high-paid work.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, with job vacancies at record levels—for care workers it is 52%, the highest level since records began—what are the Government doing to invest in the supply of much-needed care workers? Is it not time that the Government addressed the pay of care workers, currently less than that of supermarket workers, rather than trying to find solutions by recruiting workers from the poorest countries in the world, where they are desperately needed at home?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We are cognisant of the vacancies in the care industry. We are promoting work, in partnership with the Department of Health, but we want employers to pay the right rate for the job. The Government cannot subsidise employers, so that is what we will encourage them to do.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, this is obviously a hugely important issue and the statistics are very difficult to make sense of, so it is a remarkably good Question. Does the Minister realise that the importation of workers on a scale that is likely to have any significant effect on the economy would be huge in terms of immigration? Will she therefore make sure that the Government fulfil their promises to the electorate on the sheer scale of overall immigration?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am not wishing to duck the issue, but the answer to that question should really come from the Home Office. I will take it back and ask the Home Office to respond to the noble Lord.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the number of inactive people in this country of working age is increasing inexorably. In the last three months alone, it has increased by 80,000 people, and of the 640,000 who have become inactive since the onset of the pandemic, 55% say that they are long-term sick. Instead of tinkering about at the edges of this problem, as Kwasi Kwarteng was intending to do with benefits, all of the informed experts who write extensively on this are saying that we need significant investment in health, social care and childcare to release the potential of these people who are being wasted. Is the noble Baroness’s department encouraging the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he makes the economic Statement that we are all waiting for, to announce the sort of investment that will release that capacity? We will otherwise not get anything like the growth we need.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I take the point that the noble Lord makes. Those people who are long-term sick may have mental health issues that are complex, and the mental health support service is an essential element to it. As regards influencing the Chancellor, I am not aware that my Secretary of State has spoken to him, but I will ask her and respond to the noble Lord.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Is my noble friend not worried about the operation of universal credit, which of course is paid as an in-work benefit? People can work for as little as two days and still qualify for universal credit. Should this not be looked at quite closely?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I say to my noble friend that we are increasing the AET hours from nine to 12, and then from 12 hours to 15. We are trying to get to a minimum of people working part-time, but it must take into account the barriers that they face. There is no point in trying to push people into work if it creates more havoc in their life without the proper support to get into work and stay there.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the noble Baroness recognisethat there is a clear link between the lengthening waiting time for operations and those who are outside the labour force? Is that not one of the problems that the Government need to address—to speed up operations—if they want to get people in middle age back into the labour force?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I believe that the Secretary of State for Health, Thérèse Coffey, is focusing on this. I am sorry; I am really not trying to duck the issue, but the fact of the matter is that it is one for the Department of Health to look at. Clearly, we need more people to clear the backlog.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Minister is here to answer—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and will try again. The Minister is here to answer for the whole Government, but if she does not want to answer for anything but her own department, can I tell her that one-fifth of adults between 50 and 65 who have left work are currently on NHS waiting lists? Does she accept that the very least her department could do is ensure that it can assure those people that, as well as that problem, it is not about to cut the value of their benefits as well?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We will have to wait and see what is in the Secretary of State’s review of uprating. We have honoured the pledge we made on the triple lock and I am afraid that until we get to 25 November I will not be able to answer that question in all truth.
Minister for Equalities
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what the responsibilities of the Minister for Equalities will be, and whether they will update the gov.uk website to list those responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities’ role represents all aspects of the women and equalities portfolio in Cabinet. The portfolio has not changed and includes all areas of his predecessor’s portfolio. This was confirmed by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson shortly after the appointment of the Minister for Equalities and has been reflected on GOV.UK. The Cabinet role will be supported by the newly appointed Minister for Women in the other place and by me here in the House of Lords.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am still curious as to why Minister Zahawi is nervous of having women and equalities in his job title; you would think he would be proud to carry a title showing concern for over half the population. Even more puzzling—maybe it shows the priority this Government are giving to equalities issues—is that it took six weeks and my questions for the responsibilities to be put on GOV.UK. Well, better late than never. When can we expect an equalities impact assessment of the mini-Budget and how it will affect women, black and minority ethnic communities, disabled people and others with protected characteristics?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I do not know when an impact assessment will be available, but I am sure one will be. On the whole question of having “women” in the title, the designation of job titles is way above my pay grade. I cover all aspects of the portfolio in the Lords, and I would rather be defined by what we do and not what we are called.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I too checked the Government’s website this morning, after recent events, to check who is responsible for women. I saw that Katherine Fletcher MP is down as the current Minister for Women, which of course we welcome—the more Ministers we have focusing on these issues, the better. Figures show that women have been brutally exposed to and are bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis. They are disproportionately affected by surging poverty levels. That in turn affects their families and children particularly. I am sure that the Minister, who we know is extremely sympathetic to these issues, has heard harrowing reports of women missing meals in order to feed their children. Will there be an impact assessment specifically on the impact of the cost of living crisis, given the stark figures? If there has not been one, are there any plans for one—particularly for disabled women and women from minority communities, who are really suffering? Their children are suffering as well. Will the Minister take this up?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will be very happy to take it up.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I am very concerned about the push in society to erase the word “women”. It is very worrying. It is disempowering to 50% of the population; it makes women’s experiences invisible. Will the Equalities Minister, as one of his responsibilities, protect the word “women” and prevent it being replaced by gender-neutral language—particularly in public service institutions where Governments have power to do something?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I think that is a very important intervention and the noble Baroness can see from the House’s response that people agree with it. I have my first meeting with Nadhim Zahawi next week and I will put that on the agenda.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is nervousness about using the word “woman”. Last night at the PinkNews Awards, Keir Starmer declared that he would make it a crime to misgender. That means people might use the word “woman”, but nobody will define what a woman is. Maybe that nervousness is because people are frightened of misgendering and getting dragged into the gender wars. Can the Minister assure us that “equalities” means that biological women will not have their rights sidelined by an equalities agenda based on gender identity?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
One at a time, please. As far as I am concerned, I agree completely with the noble Baroness and will try to ensure that that happens.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, this House has a really superb reputation for equality, inclusion and diversity. Can the Minister explain why it is necessary in these challenging economic times for the House of Lords to be advertising for a new inclusion and diversity officer on quite a hefty salary?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
That is a very good question. I do not know as I have not seen the advert but I will go away and find out. I am sorry that I did not know that that position had been advertised and cannot answer the question accurately. I think I am going to be speaking to the Clerk of the Parliaments to get an answer, but it is a very good point.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is one area where, to advance women’s equality, we need to improve men’s rights? That is on paternity leave. If we want parents to be able to share caring responsibilities, we need to give them more equal rights. That means improving paternity leave and pay. However, given current economic circumstances, maybe a smaller step the Government could take would be to make paternity leave a day one employment right, as it is for maternity.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
That is another very good point. In 2019, the Government consulted on high-level options for reforming the parental leave and pay system, including making changes to paternity leave. We are currently considering responses to the consultation and will respond in due course.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister demonstrate how, with this very broad role, she is actively engaging with women and ensuring that they are linked to the issues that other noble Lords have raised, and promoting equality for women in this country in her daily workload, including tackling low pay in care and the NHS?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness again raises the issue of people in the care industry on low pay. Obviously, we need to increase pay so that people can live a decent life, but as far as my job is concerned, I am full strength on equalities issues relating to women. I have just come back from the G7, where I represented women. I spoke really vociferously because, as I said in my speech, women are underrepresented, they are underpaid and they are underutilised.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, my views on identity politics are pretty well known both in this House and publicly. I might help the Minister by suggesting that it might be that the inclusion and diversity post is about ensuring that all people from all backgrounds—whether they have disabilities or not—feel included in and are given the support they need to fully participate in this House. Would that not be a good thing?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
It certainly would be a good thing and I am sure people in this Chamber are listening to the recommendation of the noble Lord.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Will the Government reconsider the decision to abolish the Women’s National Commission, which represented over 100 different women’s organisations around the country? I speak as a former government co-chairman of the Women’s National Commission. The opportunity for women to meet and speak to a Government Minister who then took up the cudgel for whatever the issue was with any other government department had a lot of value at the time. I hope my noble friend will reconsider it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I had no knowledge of this organisation, but I am very happy to ask the question in the equalities department and come back to the noble Baroness in writing. I will place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government base their equalities policy on evidence or, as the Prime Minister does, on campaigns run by certain groups following a distinct ideology against women?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
As far as I am concerned, evidence is the only thing on which to base a decision. My understanding is that that is the position of the Government.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, among all the excitement about what people are called, would it not be better if we return to a common-sense approach where courtesy and kindness to all prevail?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I could not have put it better myself. I hope we all take up the cudgel on that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, with the greatest thanks and courtesy to the Minister for mentioning the gender pay gap earlier, does she agree that when the state cares about an area of law or regulation, it takes some direct responsibility for its enforcement, whether it is school standards or environmental protection? Is it not time that we considered amending the Equality Act so that a state agency takes responsibility for enforcing equal pay?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
On the gender pay gap, we have set up a reporting system: we are requiring employers to report their gap, and our gap is now down to 14%. It is not good, but it will get better; we are focusing our efforts on that. In relation to the technical point made by the noble Baroness about having somebody responsible for that, I am being asked a lot of questions today that I have to take back. I hope that nobody takes that as me trying to avoid answering the question.
Warm Hubs
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to support the establishment and maintenance of warm hubs in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
Warm hubs, as with Covid support, are a fantastic example of the way in which faith and community groups can work together with local authorities to provide support and help for their communities. The Government strongly support these initiatives, but local government, which knows the needs of its communities, is best able to give support. We have made an increase of £3.7 billion to local government this financial year. We have also made available £1.4 billion through the household support fund.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for her reply. Warmwelcome.uk is a coalition of many Christian charities that so far have signed up more than 1,600 halls, organisations and buildings to act as warm hubs providing lunches after school, homework clubs and so on. What consideration has been given to using these places of meeting to communicate and help people understand whether they can access other benefits, health advice, local charities and other support that is available during these very troubling times?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Warm hubs are there to do one specific thing, but we have the opportunity to make them not just warm, welcoming places to go but places where people who might be lonely will not be as lonely, with ongoing support for loneliness, which we know is a cause of mental health issues. He is right that hubs are an opportunity to ensure that local people get the support and knowledge they need and are entitled to, including information on such things as flu and Covid vaccines. We should be using them, and to that end I will talk—and have already talked—to the Local Government Association about best practice to move this forward.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for this important Question. The Minister will be aware that there are deep issues with the shortage of funding within all local authorities. They are having to scrape the barrel to fund services for children, adults with learning difficulties and a whole range of others. Can the Minister say with serious courtesy and conscience that the sixth-largest economy in the world can justify failing large sections of the community and rely on the use of these hubs? The most significant amount of work has been done by charities and interfaith organisations. Can we seriously say that we are satisfied with this?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have given large amounts of money to support people, households and businesses with their energy issues. I do not agree with the noble Baroness; I think communities are where these things are best delivered, and communities and local government know how to deliver them in the best way. I know that local authorities are always strapped for cash, but it is a matter of prioritisation for those local authorities and we have increased their grant by £3.7 billion this year. There is also the household support grant, a third of which is for supporting families and a third for pensioners. The other third is not ring-fenced and can very well be used for these sorts of projects.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I commend my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the London Borough of Sutton, who have already announced that they will use their libraries as warm hubs throughout the winter. Does the Minister agree with me that many commercial businesses inevitably have to use energy for their business? Will she ensure that some of the funding that goes to local government enables it to turn businesses, where possible, into warm hubs? I am thinking of places such as shopping centres, for example, which have to have a minimum amount of heating.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: we must never forget the private sector. We talk a lot about the public sector, the voluntary sector and the faith sector, but there is always the private sector. The private sector is getting energy bill relief from the Government, as are the voluntary and public sectors, so they are also getting support on their energy. I quite agree that, if we can encourage more private sector companies to look at this locally, it will help them as well as the people they support.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, given that my question earlier was about joining up, will the Minister answer the same question I asked her colleague from DCMS? What can the Government do to encourage and incentivise local authorities, statutory providers, faith organisations, the voluntary sector and the cultural sector, including libraries, to work together to maximise this kind of provision and make sure that it is advertised and made available to those people in the community who need it the most?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think we are starting from the beginning. I googled “warm hubs” today, and I suggest that noble Lords do the same. Across the whole country, these partnerships are happening now. I spoke to the chairman of the Local Government Association last night, and I encouraged it to ensure best practice—this is now happening with our partners in faith and other community groups and the private sector—and to put that information out so that all local authorities do it. Look at Leeds. Today it has put out a map of where all its warm hubs are in the city. That is a wonderful idea and should be taken up by others.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is quite clear that higher energy prices are going to have the effect of cutting the amount of energy that people use. Have the Government done any calculations on the demand for energy dropping as a result of higher prices?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am very sorry, but I do not know the answer to that. I will go to BEIS, which is responsible for this, ask it for an answer and make sure that the whole House gets that answer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to supporting organisations in providing warm hubs, since 2011 the Labour-led Government in Wales have invested almost £400 million into more than 67,000 homes to improve energy efficiency. Will the Minister commit to improving energy efficiency in homes across the UK? I ask her to begin by accepting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to the social housing Bill, to which noble Lords agreed earlier this week.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think the time has come for that amendment, but the noble Baroness is right. Warm hubs are about this winter and the immediate. We have a longer-term plan: Help to Heat is the Government’s investment of £12 billion into schemes to ensure that homes are warmer and cheaper to heat. They include boiler upgrades, local authority delivery schemes for sustainable warmth competitions, home upgrade grants, the social housing decarbonisation fund and, of course, the energy company obligations. There are a number of schemes that the Government are investing in, as is the private sector, to make sure that, in the long term, our homes are better insulated and can keep warmer on less energy.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, a lot of the solutions we have heard today are very much urban-based. I live in the middle of Cornwall, where we have 10 miles between villages. Picking up on libraries, which is a good idea, that is not quite as workable. Do the Government have any bright ideas on the rural sector?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think the Government necessarily do, but local government certainly does. If you google them, you will see the number of village halls and parish councils in these small rural areas that are doing exactly what the more urban areas are doing. We have village halls all across the country, and they can use the energy scheme for businesses and the voluntary sector. Working with their local councils, they can also get small grants to support their local villages. Also, in most of our rural villages there is a church. Working together with faith communities and parish councils, you can deliver in rural areas.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I will make a constructive suggestion in relation to rural areas; I wonder whether the Minister can help on this. We need a national campaign to encourage people in small villages, such as the one I live in, to welcome people into their homes for coffee or tea and to enable people to walk to a local warm hub, which could just be a local person who reaches out. I believe that many people would be committed to doing that. My anxiety is that we will end up with loads of people feeling that they need to go to a warm hub and sit still, which is not a solution either.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am more than happy to talk further with the noble Baroness. Some of these things are happening, but it is a matter of making sure that we keep them all together and that good practice is transferred across the country.
Hereditary Peers By-election
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I did not want to test the patience of the House, and there will be so many more opportunities if they keep coming at this rate. If there are any anoraks like me who look at these results, they are well worth reading—I enjoyed reading them. In yesterday’s election, in which 190 people voted, there were 17 rounds of voting to sort them out, under the electoral system that the House has determined. Had they declared the result after the first round, exactly the same two people would have been elected as was the case after the 17th round. These elections cost us: we pay an outside organisation to do it. The winning candidate got 36 votes, and the turnout was 28.6%. I am bidding to become the Lords’ answer to Professor Sir John Curtice.
Communications and Digital Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Violent Crime, Gang Activity and Burglaries
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
That this House takes note of (1) the current level of violent crime, gang activity, and burglaries, and (2) the strategy of His Majesty’s Government for addressing these problems.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, violent crime and the fear of crime concern many people in this country. I will illustrate some statistics, particularly in the West Midlands area, which I am familiar with—I represented part of it in the other place for some years. I am grateful to the police and crime commissioner of the West Midlands, Mr Simon Foster, for providing these statistics.
The Office for National Statistics’ figures for violent crime, which is mentioned in the Motion, show that there were over 1.5 million such incidents in the current year, from March 2021 to March 2022. There were no fewer than 710 homicides in the United Kingdom, which represents a 25% increase year on year.
Of course, other crimes fall within the category of violent crime, and I shall deal with them solely in the West Midlands in the next few minutes. Some 3,601 rape crimes, for example, were recorded in the West Midlands in 2021, representing a 562% increase in rape offences from 2012. Similar increases in other sexual offences short of rape were recorded, particularly over the last year for which statistics were collected.
There was a 116% increase in homicides in the West Midlands between 2014 and 2022. I could continue with offences of violence against the person, but one in particular that concerns people countrywide is the increase in domestic burglary, particularly in the West Midlands, where there was an 88% increase between 2014 and 2019.
On gang activity, which is also mentioned in the Motion, the Children’s Commissioner estimates that some 27,000 young people are active in gangs engaged in criminality in the United Kingdom, particularly the movement of drugs through county lines. “County lines” is where illegal drugs are transported from one area to another, often across police and local authority boundaries, usually by children or vulnerable people who are coerced into such activity by gangs. The county line is the mobile phone line used to take the orders of drugs. Importing areas—areas where the drugs are taken to—are reporting increased levels of violence and weapons-related crimes as a result of this trend.
In 2019, the NCA estimated that over 2,000 individual county lines were in operation. It said:
“These deal lines are controlled by criminal networks based primarily in urban hubs and facilitate the direct purchase of illicit drugs, primarily class A (crack cocaine and heroin), by drug users in smaller towns and rural areas.”
The three urban areas most affected by county lines are London—obviously—Liverpool and Birmingham. When the Minister replies, could he say what activities the Government are planning to reduce the involvement of children, particularly young children, in such county lines?
According to police statistics, there were almost 50,000 knife crimes in the year to March 2022. In the West Midlands, there is considerable concern about such incidents, with an increase of 163% between 2010 and 2021. It is of course easy for His Majesty’s Government to blame knife crime in London on the Labour mayor. The previous Home Secretary—I cannot remember who that was because there have been so many—was adept at blaming Sadiq Khan, although surely the Government must bear most of the responsibility for criminal activity and the response to it in the capital.
Countrywide, there were 192,060 burglaries between March 2021 and March 2022. That is 526 every day, or one burglary every 164 seconds. As I indicated earlier, there has been an 88% increase in domestic burglaries in the West Midlands between 2014 and 2019. I will detain your Lordships on burglaries for a moment because I feel strongly about this. I have lived at my present address in south Birmingham for 32 years. In that time, I have been subjected to no fewer than five burglaries, two of which were successful—from the burglars’ point of view—and I assure your Lordships that few incidents are more depressing than arriving back from London to find your front door smashed and every room in the house turned over. Burglars are not known for tidying up before they leave; the contents of every drawer and cupboard are taken out and strewn across the place.
Although it is sometimes said that burglary is a victimless crime because we claim on our insurance, it is sometimes months after the event that we realise that certain items are missing. Many of the items stolen are not particularly valuable financially but mean a great deal to the people concerned. In my case, among the things stolen was a silver casket I received from the borough of Sandwell with my citation as a freeman of the borough. They dropped the medal and the citation itself in the garden, so at least I can still prove that I am still a freeman of the borough of Sandwell but the solid silver casket disappeared with the other valuables. Various other silver items were taken on this occasion, which, quite frankly, were irreplaceable: a silver tankard which I and other members of the Bredbury and Romiley Urban District Council received when we were abolished—by a Tory Government, incidentally—following the Local Government Act 1972. I cannot replace that and it was not worth very much, but these are the sort of items and the sort of distressing results of the number of burglaries that take place in the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary—at least, the Home Secretary until yesterday—made a speech to the Conservative Party conference recently, promising to restore police numbers to those we enjoyed when the Conservatives first came to power in 2010 and that a police officer would visit every burglary. No consultation has taken place with the Police Federation about the practicalities of such a scheme but, then again, it served its purpose by drawing a standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference. Alas, her opportunities to draw such a standing ovation in the office of Home Secretary have now been curtailed by her own act of yesterday, but it placated the crowd at the time. Indeed, it roused it to some degree of enthusiasm.
I have dealt with the outline of the situation so far as the terms of the Motion before us are concerned, but I could not leave this subject without talking about police morale generally. Under a Conservative Government—a so called Government of law and order—police morale has plummeted considerably. The vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales has lobbied the Government over many years, particularly about the reckless cuts made to police forces during austerity, which have resulted in rising levels of crime. He said that
“we are seeing this pressure disillusion colleagues with years of experience, driving them to leave the service due to pay and morale issues and the devastating impact of unfair and discriminatory pension changes.”
I spent a couple of years when a Member of the other place as a home affairs spokesman and spent some time during that period accompanying police officers on their duty, some in the Metropolitan area and some in the West Midlands. I read lately of the problems in the Metropolitan Police area and the decision of the new police commissioner to get rid of, as he puts it, literally hundreds of police officers for improper behaviour. Of course, I support that. However, I have to say, without in any way defending the sort of behaviour that the new police commissioner outlined, that I was struck by the youth of some of the police officers I accompanied and by the sort of tasks they had to undertake.
One that sticks firmly in my mind was accompanying two police officers, a man and a woman, in their mid-20s to the flat of an old person who had not been seen for some months. It was necessary to break down the door accompanied by a member of the local authority. The sight and smell of a corpse that had been in that property for some three months remains with me after 30-odd years. When we give police officers tasks such as that at a fairly young age, it is perhaps inevitable that they develop a carapace—a thick skin—concerning the duties they have to undertake. We followed that up within a couple of days by picking up a hopelessly incontinent drug addict from the arches near Waterloo Station. We should appreciate that young police officers perform tasks that no one else would want to do and, while quite properly taking action against those who misbehave, we should recognise that, for many of them, coming to work means the sort of role that I have just outlined.
As for police officers in the West Midlands, I am grateful to the police commissioner for some of the facts and figures on financial cuts to policing in the West Midlands since 2010. In 2010, the West Midlands had a total of 8,765 police officers. Austerity meant that 2,221 were cut and £175 million slashed from the police budget. That is 25% of police officers in the West Midlands, plus hundreds of essential police staff, including 300 community support officers. At the same time, there were huge cuts in the services vital to preventing crime in the first place, such as youth clubs, mental health services, local council funding and probation services. When these arbitrary cuts are made, it is often forgotten that although the Government of the day can show an instant saving, the cumulative cost of those savings far outweighs the initial amount saved. So many young people in the West Midlands being deprived of some of the services that I have outlined has resulted in the increase in crime that I have mentioned. As of March 2022, because of the Government’s change of heart, the total number of police officers in the West Midlands now stands at 7,642 but that is still over 1,000 officers short of the situation back in 2010 when that Government came to power.
As of today, we are to have a new Home Secretary, Mr Grant Shapps, who is taking over. He has had a versatile career since he entered the House of Commons. He has changed his name a few times as well, but I will come to that in a moment. He has been the Transport Secretary, the International Development Secretary, the Conservative Party chairman, the Housing Minister and now he is the new Home Secretary. He is a very versatile chap. According to this morning’s Guardian, he is a man of many roles and many names. He has been known as Mr Michael Green, Mr Sebastian Fox and, most unlikely of all, as Ms Corinne Stockheath during his career. Which name and guise he will adopt in his present role, only time will tell. I hope he will prove a better Home Secretary than he was a Transport Secretary. Noble Lords might recollect that I have bored the House on numerous occasions with transport stories. He was notorious for every problem being a photo opportunity when he was Transport Secretary. One would hope that he will change his tune in his new and extremely important role.
For a Government who pride themselves on their economic abilities, this Government have virtually bankrupted the nation. For a Government who wrap themselves in a flag of patriotism on every occasion, they have reduced the British Army to its lowest level for two centuries. For a Government who brag about law and order, there is nothing at all to brag about, given the situation that many of our people in this country find themselves in at present. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, not only for obtaining this timely debate but for his introduction to it. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I will focus on just one specific area of this huge topic, which I imagine many of us will want to address: knife crime. The diocese I serve encompasses Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire; in Bedfordshire, knife crime has increased by a third since 2010. There are various estimates about the increases over the last year, but it is something in the region of 10% across our nation. There was a fall during the lockdowns, but we are now rapidly reaching the same levels as pre Covid and the projections are stark—so it is deeply worrying.
It is engendering huge levels of fear: as I go around talking to people, many of the elderly are fearful of their houses being broken into, although they are statistically unlikely to be the victims of knife crime. However, when you go into schools, it is a topic of which many young children are terrified, not least as they make their way to and from school. Hospitals are dealing with soaring numbers of stab victims: 4,112 cases were recorded last year, a 2% increase on the previous year. Of those, 855 were in London, 405 in the West Midlands, 310 in Greater Manchester, 240 in West Yorkshire hospitals, 175 in South Yorkshire and 140 in Merseyside. In other words, this is not just a case of stories being particularly highly reported in the papers of London; it is something that affects areas—particularly urban but even sometimes rural—across our country. It is particularly concerning that a recent report suggests that only one in six crimes involving a knife in London has been solved by the police over the last two years.
I know that others will comment on the police, but we need to start by thanking them for being on the front line, which is the most terrifying place to be when you are confronted with a knife. Having been out sometimes with a night shift to watch what our police are having to cope with, I have nothing but admiration for them putting their lives on the line and having to deal with situations I would not know how to begin with—and some of them are doing it night after and after. We really need to support our police. This is why we need to ensure that the promises that have been made to recruit 20,000 new police officers are met, and that we get those people in place. The latest I can find out on recruitment is that we are sort of half way there. I will ask the Minister a bit more about that at the end. We need to have people on the ground who are policing, and we need to support our police and everybody in our criminal justice system.
Having said that, when someone is convicted, it is too late: we need to get far ahead on preventing it before we are simply dealing with the effects. As noble Lords know, some people say it costs—we hear various figures—something like £40,000 a year to keep someone in a young offender institution. It would be far better if we were spending that money on preventive work with youth workers and other people to get ahead of the game. We need to try to work out how we can support the police and get ahead of this terrible problem that is affecting so many communities.
How can we work to beat our swords into ploughshares and our knives into useful tools? In the areas where I work with voluntary groups and churches, there is an awful lot of work going on and a lot of analysis about how we can build the sort of communities that are likely to reduce the levels of knife crime. This is not a problem for just the left or the right; we need solutions from all political sides if we are going to get on top of this. According to a very interesting analysis I read, there is poverty of resources, poverty of relationships and poverty of identity.
On the poverty of resources, we are not investing in the way that we used to in youth work, and we are not investing in enough groups, sports and other activities to give young people activities to engender their sense of competition, pride and so on. We really need to think about how we are investing in this. In the communities in which I work, so many of our youth centres are being sold off. I think I am right in saying that my diocese now employs more youth workers—as a voluntary organisation—than Hertfordshire County Council and the Bedfordshire unitary authorities combined. That is good, but we need to invest more and recognise that there is a poverty of resources.
From the perspective of the right, there is a poverty of relationships. We have a crisis of children being brought up in families with absent parents and where there are no role models. A lot of the extended family has gone—where, for example, when a marriage broke up there was probably an uncle who would come round and be in loco parentis. A lot of that has gone. We need to look at how we can invest in our family life and how we think about young people having real mentors who can hold them responsible. It is vital that we think about these role models.
Finally, on the poverty of identity, many young people feel as though there is nothing to which they can aspire. They are being sold an awful lot of guff in the media about how everybody can be successful and famous. It is no wonder that they are dismayed when they know there is no way out of their local community. How can we provide ways for these young people to see that there are alternatives to finding their identity and role in society that are not based on holding a knife and saying, “Do what I say, or else”? Some of the very interesting work that has gone on with our churches has involved knife amnesties. Some noble Lords will have seen the extraordinary sculptures made of the knives that have been handed in; we had one recently in one of our churches in Luton.
I will ask the Minister three questions. First, may we have an update on the recruitment of police and police community support officers? That needs to include how many are leaving, not just how many we are recruiting: are the total numbers going up, because we need to ensure that we have the resources on the ground? Secondly, may we have an assessment of the success of serious violence reduction orders in reducing knife crime? Thirdly, may we have an assessment of the troubled families programme, which ran from 2013 to 2020 and worked with over 400,000 families? What lessons did we learn and are we implementing them?
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate and thank my noble friend on securing this debate. I intend to speak about my experience as the police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland between 2016 and 2021, in particular in the area of serious violence and particularly as it affects young people. To be fair, it is an area in which the Home Office has acted over the last few years, significantly with the introduction of the serious violence duty—the guidance was published in May last year, the month I stood down.
However, to begin, it is important to state in the clearest possible terms, so it is never forgotten, that a major factor in the depressing figures around crime mentioned by my noble friend, including serious violence, was the early decision taken by the coalition Government to sharply cut the number of police officers in England and Wales year after year from 2010. This was a disastrous decision, the consequences of which are felt today everywhere. My feeling is that my friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches now regret their part in this, but I have never heard an apology from the major party in that Government, which continued the policy after 2015. There was no acknowledgement that the policy was wrong, counterproductive and hugely expensive in human and financial terms.
Of course, very late on, the Conservatives came to their senses and now boast constantly about the 20,000 new officers being created in the next three years. That is not enough to get back to the 2010 figures, but they are still not apologising for those wasted years. Will the Minister, who is new to his job—I welcome him very much to it—apologise today for cutting police numbers in that way and can he confirm that police cuts will not play a part in the cuts the Chancellor promised earlier this week? I am not sure that all Conservatives have learnt the lesson.
In Leicestershire, there were 2,317 police officers in 2010. At its lowest, the figure went down by 23% to 1,777. By 31 March this year, it was 2,242, with an agreed extra 100 officers by 31 March 2023, at last reaching the 2010 figure. I am afraid that my successor cut the 100 extra planned for this year, even though it was agreed by all parties. Claiming that it was unaffordable, he called in the Home Office civil servants to back him up. Unfortunately for him, both they and the then Policing Minister disagreed and the plan for an extra 100 was given a clean bill of health. The extra 100 officers would have mostly been in by now. Given the recent violence and unrest in the great city of Leicester and the need for four other forces to supply reinforcements at enormous cost, I hope the present police and crime commissioner regrets his damaging and irresponsible decision.
In 2006, there was one officer per 430 residents of Leicestershire and Rutland. In 2018, that one officer was for 615 residents. Last year, the figure was 500 residents. By March next year, it should have been 488 residents, but now it will not because of the cut of 100 officers. That is a sad story. My question to the Minister is this, although he may not be able to answer it: has the Home Office made any representations about the decision taken in that particular part of England, which is obviously against government policy?
I want to say a word about serious violence. Noble Lords will know of the Scottish violence reduction unit based in Glasgow, led by an ex-police superintendent, Niven Rennie, which over the years has inspired other police forces and police and crime commissioners in England and Wales and has, I believe, influenced the Government favourably too. We in Leicestershire were certainly inspired listening to him speak at a conference at our multiagency committee, the strategic partnership board, held at police headquarters in Leicester.
The principle behind all this is common sense. If action can be taken early with young people who have suffered what are called adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, and suffered trauma as a consequence, and who may be susceptible as a result to committing criminal and even serious criminal behaviour, including violence, that multidisciplinary action may prevent them becoming involved in crime in the first place and, if they do, give them a second chance to get out of it. Examples and evidence of success are there. Of course, it takes a long time.
The Government were impressed enough to give grants for the setting up and support of violence reduction units in 18 of the 23 police force areas, including Leicestershire. Ours has been going for three years now, brilliantly led by Grace Strong. It has much police force involvement, of course. It is a multiagency network, existing to tackle and prevent serious violence and violent crime, particularly that involving young people.
To give an example of what it does, it has organised a small team, often made up of young people, who visit the local A&E at the Leicester Royal Infirmary to try to talk to victims and perpetrators of knife crime, who of course end up in hospital, at what is called the changeable moment—that crucial moment—with the hope of persuading them that knife culture and violence is wrong and counterproductive. I think that is a wonderful initiative.
We set up something called people zones in my time in Leicester. These are small, specific geographical areas in which we established multiagency groups to deal with preventing all offending, from anti-social behaviour at one end to serious violence at the other. I am extremely proud of this initiative and am glad that my successor, who I have perhaps been a bit hard on in this speech, has confirmed the scheme. I congratulate him on doing so.
I end by saying how right the right reverend Prelate was in saying that we owe so much to our police. I learned that very much as a police and crime commissioner.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Snape for initiating this debate. I have lived in Peckham in south London for over 40 years. I am afraid that it has had its fair share of knife crime. One claim to fame is that we have one of the world’s expert consultant surgeons on knife injuries. His name is TJ Lasoye, and he ought to get a knighthood or something. He spends his time going round schools telling children what the real effects of injuries are. Some children did not believe that stabbing somebody in the temple hurt or caused any problems. He devotes his time to the seriousness of knife crime.
I witnessed an invasion by a gang at King’s College Hospital, where he works. They came to look for the knife victim to finish the job. It was a terrifying experience which affects the local community every day. Having said that, it is a warm, wonderful community. It has more churches per square inch than probably anywhere else in the United Kingdom and so deserves better from the government policy on law and order.
One of the worst aspects of a failing Government treating deadly serious subjects as if they are a game in a children’s sandpit is that it drags all of us and the work we try to do down, and ignores the misery and stress of people waiting for justice, walking the streets in fear or working in a failing service and longing for early retirement. The only way to improve things is to have a general election, but we know that that is the one issue that unites the Conservative Party—not to go to the country until they absolutely have to. I understand that 5 January 2024 is the absolutely final date, so that is 442 days to go.
Although the resignation of the Prime Minister would not improve a single statistic in the sorry state of law and order, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Snape, it would be one of the only other options to achieve some stability. I checked the rules on the pensions of Prime Ministers and senior officeholders—moved, incidentally, in the House of Commons by a former Member of this House, Lord MacGregor. We were on the Committee on Standards in Public Life at the same time in the early 1990s, and I can only imagine what Lord MacGregor’s view of the current situation would be.
Anyway, back to the Prime Minister’s pension. If I understand the rules correctly, she is entitled to a Prime Minister’s pension when she leaves office. I would not like to see her go into poverty like the WASPI women who have been deprived of state pension money because they were not given sufficient notice. The WASPI women did nothing wrong, such as taking the “Great” out of Great Britain. If I have misread the rules on the PM’s pension and she is not so entitled if she goes, say, tomorrow, for the sake of argument, I would be happy to contribute to some crowd-funding venture, if that would persuade her to go.
I was distraught when I heard that Suella Braverman was sacked as Home Secretary yesterday, because the other half of my speech was devoted to why she was unfit for high office. She was Attorney-General in 2020—a government law officer. Not only did she not resign when the Government announced that they intended to override the Northern Ireland protocol, she publicly defended the situation. When Mr Brandon Lewis, as Northern Ireland Secretary, said that the new Bill in 2020 to amend the UK’s Brexit deal with the EU
“does break international law in a very specific and limited way”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/2020; col. 509]
Sir Jonathan Jones, the Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department, the most senior lawyer advising the Government, resigned over this statement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, resigned as a Government Minister in this House—a careful and thoughtful man who took 48 hours to do so.
This was a serious issue leading to serious resignations. Mr Brandon Lewis’s statement was not contradicted by No. 10 Downing Street. Clearly, we would not wish to put Mr Brandon Lewis anywhere near the law and order brief. Oh, wait a minute, he is Justice Secretary. I always have this image of a young urchin in Peckham, where I live, being held by a security officer for stealing juice and a bar of chocolate from the local supermarket saying, “I did break the law, but in a very specific and limited way.”
I turn to one of the aspects of the Government’s strategy to tackle crime and gang activity. I do not have time to deal with the virtual collapse of the probation and social work services, which is a stain on our country. A lot more could be said, if I had the time. But I do want to say something about our police and prison officers. Ms Braverman, when she was still in office, promised the Conservative Party conference that there would be 20,000 more police officers by March 2023. Is that still the Government’s policy? Does it simply make up for the 20,000 reduction when the Conservatives came to power? Is it sufficient when we have 4 million more people in the country? Nothing was said about prison officers. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s plan for recruiting more prison officers?
As chair of ACAS, 20 years ago I participated in a two-day residential seminar on how to improve working conditions in the Prison Service. The issues identified have worsened tenfold since that time. If prison officers are not valued for the important work they do, how will we achieve better safety, security and skills training in our prisons?
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, has already referred to Ché Donald, the national vice-chair of the Police Federation, who said that the increase in the number of police officers is desperately needed, but also pointed to other issues of stress and disillusion, pay and the impact of unfair discriminatory pension changes. These are such basic HR issues that only a Cabinet of millionaires could fail to see their importance. The pensions issue alone, capping the pension contributions of public service pensions, has had the consequences that I predicted when it was first imposed—a 10% cut. Ask any HR officer if he would like to hang on to 10% of his staff and not lose those skills, training and experience—
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the eight-minute speaking time.
Lord Bird (CB)
I would like to congratulate those governors of certain prisons who, I have been told, are wise enough not to allow the release of prisoners on a Friday. This is because out of the 70,000 a year who move out of the Prison Service, about 500 a month go straight into homelessness and the problems that they had before they came in. Lo and behold, in spite of all the efforts of people—probation officers, prison officers, policemen, members of the public and homeless organisations, et cetera—we still find that people end up back in prison.
I do not know how many governors do this; it is difficult to find out. As noble Lords know, governors are like captains of ships, who can do all sorts of things that we would like them to do. Some of the do and some of them do not. I used to go into a prison very regularly and talk to the prisoners. I had a brilliant time and took the mickey out of them and told them they were not as bright as me, because I was out and they were in. I had fun about it and actually built up a kind of attitude around education and social change. But lo and behold, another governor comes in and I find it incredibly difficult to get in because they do not have the same concerns.
When I spoke to a conference of governors and senior officers in the Prison Service, I asked how many of them had rehabilitation in the first five items of things that they considered. Not one of them had rehabilitation, because they had the usual stuff: security, so that the chaps and chapesses do not get away and officers are not attacked and hurt; and so that people do not commit suicide. They had those considerations and very few officers had rehabilitation.
I am really pleased there are governors—and I thank them—who have faced up to the fact that if prisoners are let out of prison on a Friday and they have had problems before, they will not be able to get to social security or support systems and will get into trouble over the weekend. Lo and behold, they might find themselves doing things that, after the event, they did not want to be doing. As I said, 70,000 prisoners a year leave the Prison Service and about 500 fall into homelessness.
We spend about £3 billion on our prisons. That is not a lot of money; it adds up to about £44,000 for each prisoner, but if they have problems and are likely to try to commit suicide or are violent, that figure can go up another £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000. We have prisoners who cost £100,000. As the right reverend Prelate said, we are spending the money in the wrong place. We are not spending it on prevention.
When I was banged up, it cost £63 a week, I think. That seems low, but it was three times what my dad was earning as a plasterer—so there is a kind of weirdness. I would like to see the complete and utter reformation of not just how we treat prisoners but how we treat crime. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked about the enormous increase in burglary in the West Midlands. What is burglary? You can call it burglary, but you can also call it an economy. You could call it a form of trade. You could call it all sorts of things.
Something is going desperately wrong in our country when we are putting so much effort into all sorts of things but we are not putting any effort into dismantling poverty. What do you think knife crime is? I will tell you what it is. I remember, as a boy, being a member of a gang and having a flick-knife. I went round imposing myself on people who did not have a flick-knife. We did not use knives as often then because we had hanging over us the threat that, if we killed somebody, we ourselves would be killed—if we were over the age of 18.
I am not very liberal about the fact that what we have now is a complete devaluation of human life. When there is poverty, how do people who are stuck in poverty express themselves? How do they make themselves something on the block, something in their block of flats or something on the street? I know that, if I was back there, I would be seeking some kind of identity. A knife is a brilliant way of getting some identity. If, at the same time, you are surrounded by TV, Netflix and all this other rubbish that shows the devaluation of human life, with no spirituality or love for each other, you will not give a toss if that knife goes into somebody and reduces them to nothingness.
We are in the middle of a crisis. We are not in a crisis just because Truss has screwed things up. That is a manifestation of a crisis. There is a deeper crisis. When I came into the House of Lords, I came here to dismantle poverty. I did not come in to make the poor a bit more comfortable or move the chairs on the “Titanic”. We really need to stop, think and wonder why we let our police officers down. I know them. I know the guys who are coming back beaten up by what they have to see and the lives they live—like our prison officers, teachers and people in the community. It may sound weird, but I think we really need to reinvent our thinking around crime. We have to sit back and say, “Whatever we’ve done is not working”.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I wish I could speak with the same passion as the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate: it is very timely.
Recent ONS figures show that police recorded crime data for “violence against the person” offences in the year ending March 2022 showed an 18% increase on the 1.8 million offences recorded in the year ending March 2021, and the similar figure in the pre-coronavirus year ending March 2020. The 710 homicides recorded for the year ending March 2022 was a return to pre-pandemic levels, while knife-enabled crime recorded by the police saw a 10% year-on-year increase to more than 49,000 offences in the same period. There were increases across all knife-enabled violent and sexual offences, with the sole exception of attempted murder. Violence with injury offences increased by 22% to more than 560,000 in the year ending March 2022 compared with the previous year. This was also 5% higher than the levels recorded in the pre-Covid year ending March 2020.
While overall levels of homicides fell during 2021—a decrease that coincided with the pandemic and related restrictions to social contact—it is the case that young people, particularly girls, have been disproportionately affected, as recent terrible headlines have reminded us. In a survey this year, the ONS found that people now feel less safe walking alone, in a park or in an open space. Young people in particular feel unsafe using public transport after dark. We are going backwards rather than improving lives for the better.
Of course, recent statistics on crime levels have been affected by the coronavirus pandemic. There are also difficulties around how data is collected, whether it is by crime surveys or as crimes reported to the police. However, there is no escaping the stark truth that, despite more than a decade of tough talking by the Government, we are still facing truly shocking levels of violent crime in this country.
Many of these crimes are driven by drugs and gang activity. Gang involvement with drugs is often, and most destructively, manifested through county lines activities. I saw the impact of this in my housing work, and I will focus my comments on violent crime as it affects young people—specifically county lines drug dealing and the dangers for young people, particularly those in care or in vulnerable families who get caught up in gang violence and knife crime. My noble friend outlined how county lines operate.
The Government have declared that this a priority for the police to tackle. In October 2021, they published their Beating Crime Plan, and money has been spent on dedicated task forces and 18 violence reduction units. They have also set up the youth endowment fund to fund early intervention projects. We have been given the stats to show that this is having some impact. Policing responses have interrupted and closed down some gang activity. In 2019, the National Crime Agency estimated that there were more than 2,000 individual county lines in operation. It revised that in April last year to nearer 600, ascribing the reduction to increased policing and new guidance on tackling this issue.
However, there is no room for complacency. The National Youth Agency warns that the county lines business model is adapting, making offending harder to detect and increasingly resilient to disruption by law enforcement. This is far more deeply embedded than can be resolved by policing alone. The threat of gang-led county lines drug dealing to young people and the risk of violence and exploitation remain at shocking levels. It is estimated that 20% of those involved in county lines are children. The most common age range is 15 to 16, but the NYA notes anecdotal reports of children as young as 7 or 8 being exploited.
It is our most vulnerable children who are most likely to become ensnared. This means those who lack a safe or stable home environment; those who have prior experience of neglect, physical and/or sexual abuse; those who have mental health or substance misuse issues; those who have been excluded from mainstream education or are in care; and those who are homeless, in social housing or in insecure accommodation. They are the most vulnerable to exploitation.
We know the criminal exploitation of children is a common feature of county lines activity, yet we still have no statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. This potentially makes it all the harder for our public services to work together to identify how much support a child needs or, indeed, the level of risk surrounding an exploited child. Can the Minister tell the House when the Government will implement in law a definition of child criminal exploitation?
If we are to tackle the threat from gangs and violence associated with county lines, we must have sufficient youth services and support for young people living in areas of deprivation and disadvantage. Further, they must be trained and upskilled so that they can build capacity and outreach in order to work with vulnerable young people wherever they are. Sadly, along with years of cuts to policing and the courts—this has been mentioned already—we have had years of cuts to funding for youth services. The provision of safe spaces and group activities for young people, with trained youth workers and skilled volunteers, is enormously patchy. This leaves young people vulnerable and prey to gangs. Again, from my work in housing, I have seen where youth workers now have so few resources that they are not able to offer alternatives to keep young people out of gangs and off the street.
The YMCA report Out Of Service noted that, since 2010, more than 4,500 youth work jobs have been cut and more than 750 youth centres closed. In 2010-11, local authorities spent an estimated £1.36 billion in real terms on youth services in England. By 2018-19, the real-terms reduction was £959 million—a 71% cut during that period. The consequences of these cuts during 12 years of this Government are seen in our shocking levels of knife crime, rates of serious violence and the rise of mental health difficulties among young people. Youth services are a lifeline for many young people, but these cuts have left many without local safe spaces or support.
The NYA’s 2021 report, Between the Lines, called for a high-level government strategy—a youth workforce development to recruit, train and deploy 10,000 full-time qualified youth workers. This goal should sit alongside the target of 20,000 more police officers outlined in the Government’s Beating Crime Plan. The NYA is now also calling for revenue investment to recruit a further 20,000 youth support workers and 40,000 trained volunteers. Have the Government listened to the call from the Home Affairs Select Committee last year for a youth service guarantee? How have they responded?
If it is the case that violent crime is disproportionately committed by young people, we need investment to deliver viable alternatives. We must increase support for those initiatives that have proved successful. All this points to the vital importance of the levelling-up agenda and investing in skills development to put people on a more productive path.
The pattern of job-related crimes is changing all the time. Our most disadvantaged communities and our most vulnerable young people continue to live with serious crime and the reality of gang violence. We need to tackle the roots of these problems, but we are running out of time if we are to keep our communities safe.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for securing this important debate. He commented on the fact that the former Home Secretary received a standing ovation for announcing that the police would in future visit every home that had been burgled. It was amazing that she thought it was something to boast about or something that should be applauded. It is a complete disgrace that the police have not had the resources to visit homes that have been burgled. In the majority of cases, people who have been burgled have not even had the police visit them at all. It amazes me that you expect to be applauded for presiding over a situation such as that and announcing that it is going to be changed.
I want to raise two issues, both shocking instances of gang violence. The victims in both cases were children. I draw your Lordships’ and the Government’s attention to the shocking murder of Dea-John Reid. He was a 14-year-old black lad from Birmingham, killed by a gang in the city last year. What more can the Government do to secure justice for him and for his family? I have spoken about this case in the House before and I shall do so again and again until justice is secured for his family.
One evening in May last year, after an altercation between two groups of teenagers—the sort of thing that happens routinely—Dea-John was chased down a busy street by a group of five males, including two grown men, shouting racist abuse. One of them, who was 14 years old at the time, killed him with a knife. A 14-year-old black boy was chased by a gang and stabbed to death. His mum, Joan Reid, said he was
“hunted by a lynch mob reminiscent of ‘Mississippi Burning’”.
Following an earlier altercation, the boy who killed Dea-John had phoned George Khan, aged 38, who was drinking in a pub with his friend, 35-year-old Michael Shields. They collected the three boys in Khan’s car and, the court was told,
“set off to hunt down the Dea-John group”.
According to the prosecuting barrister:
“Khan carried the plan to seek retribution forwards and actively encouraged the attack.”
A witness said that Khan pointed and shouted, “Oi, you …”, using the N-word. Dea-John and his friends ran but he went in a different direction from the group to get away. Khan and the other defendants ran after him. A witness said that the men had their tops off, using them to cover their faces. They were carrying weapons. Khan allegedly shouted “Bang him out” and “Eff him up” to one of the teenagers. These were grown men. If that is not incitement, tell me what is.
The 14-year-old lad had asthma, ran out of breath, was caught, stabbed and killed. Imagine it: on the streets of Birmingham last year, a boy chased by a racist mob, cornered, stabbed and killed. This is incredible. No one doubts that those five people were responsible, but four of the five defendants who chased him, including the two adults, were found not guilty by an all-white jury. The fifth, aged 15, was convicted of just manslaughter. He will be free in less than three years. Someone in Birmingham asked me what lessons have been learned from this—a gang shouting racist abuse and the stabbing of a black boy?
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, will remember Birmingham in the 1980s, as I do. Failings of the police and the criminal justice system resulted in riots on the streets. Handsworth, Lozells—on fire. There is never any justification for such behaviour.
Dea-John Reid’s mum called for calm in the black community. It listened, because it trusted the authorities, but it has clearly been let down. Why are those men walking free? Was there a problem with the evidence? Did the CPS not prosecute it properly? Did someone get to the jury? What happened? Why has there not been an immediate public outcry about this?
If this had been in London, it would have been a national scandal. It was a racist attack—an issue about knife crime, community safety, policing and the failure of the criminal justice system. The Opposition should be all over this, holding the Government to account. Why am I the only person who has raised this in a detailed way in either Chamber of Parliament? I want Ministers to look at it. I think the Attorney-General should refer it to the Court of Appeal. I know that we cannot have political direction of the police and the courts, but this cannot be allowed to stand. Will Ministers call in the chief constable and the CPS of the West Midlands to find out what has gone on. Could other charges be brought, such as affray or racially motivated assault? Something has to be done to secure justice for this family and for the black community in Birmingham.
The second case I want to raise is the racist attack on a group of Jewish children celebrating Hanukkah in Oxford Street last December. They were attacked by a mob of anti-Semites who made Nazi salutes, yelled, “Eff Jews; eff Israel”, spat at the children and threatened to smash the windows of their bus. The whole terrifying incident was caught on camera yet, despite clear CCTV evidence, mobile phone footage and multiple witnesses, investigators concluded their investigation, and the attackers remain at large.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is a former government reviewer of anti-terror legislation, said:
“The police must start to prioritise violent and explicitly racist attacks, especially where there is photographic evidence of a kind which would enable the perpetrator to be identified.”
Referring to this, and to another attack in London last year, he said:
“Both of these cases are examples of institutional failure to prioritise significant cases involving serious danger to members of the public. Letting this slide makes other incidents and even possible terrorist incidents more likely.”
The Board of Deputies has demanded an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary. Dave Rich, the director of policy at the Community Security Trust, said:
“This comes in the same week that the Home Office revealed only eight % of all racist and religious hate crime lead to a charge or summons.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism said:
“If even high-profile hate crimes such as this are not solved and the perpetrators brought to justice, what hope do the many other crimes against Jewish people have of being satisfactorily investigated?”
That campaign, the Jewish News and the Jewish Chronicle have jointly offered a reward of £30,000 leading to the conviction of any of the perpetrators. I draw attention to my declaration in the register as a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle. Will the Minister or his colleagues speak to the Met and find out what else can be done to bring those responsible to justice?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I join previous speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Snape for introducing this important debate. It is clear from what we have been told so far that the Government are not doing enough to address the problems. There is not a simple solution, but I do not think the solutions are mysteries. We know where we need to go; it just takes an effort of will and the resources to achieve it. We know that the solution does not rely on tough talk. We have to reject the “bad actor” model of crime as a simple way out. We have to recognise that society as a whole has a responsibility to set the circumstances in which crime will not flourish. The obvious example of this is poverty and what society can do to alleviate the circumstances in which crime will develop. I think that is well understood. What is also understood, but I want to say more about, is the intersection between crime and poor mental health.
I need to be clear that I am not saying that people with poor mental health are a cause of crime. They are actually far more likely to be victims of crime than the culprits. There is no doubt, however, that improvements in mental health services can have a major impact on the current levels of crime, including violent crime and gang activity, both in reducing the incidence of crime in the first place and then in more effectively supporting the measures that we can take to ensure that the perpetrators of crime can escape the cycle of their criminal activity.
I draw particular attention to the joint inspection report by the Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Inspectorate of Prisons, the Inspectorate of Probation and the Care Quality Commission. Last year they produced a report that set out some important conclusions about what needs to be done. They identified how thousands of people with mental illness are coming into the criminal justice system each year, but their needs are being missed. That, of course, is a tragedy for us as well as for the individuals concerned. There is a shortage of services and there are long delays in accessing what services are available—made worse by the pandemic, of course. A specific problem is delays in reports for the court and for transferring extremely unwell prisoners into secure mental health hospital beds. Clearly, these problems do not help. They let down the individuals and society as a whole.
One interesting reference in the report is the finding that police officers had a good understanding that the causes of minor crime required a health response rather than a crime response. This is a key issue. I hope we will address these issues in the context of the forthcoming mental health Bill, and I hope the Minister can tell us in his reply that the Government understand the nature of this problem and that dealing with the issues that people have identified today is a priority.
Secondly, I want to say something as a resident of the inner city, where youth crime is a particular concern. It needs to be understood that it is not a middle-class panic about crime in the inner city. The people who really suffer from crime in the inner city tend to be those who are least well off; they are the real victims of what is going on. It is not a question of victims versus criminals and a case of just locking them up, going hard on them and throwing away the key. Most of the young people who tragically fall into this cycle of crime are victims of crime themselves and have gone through difficult and challenging childhoods. It is not just a question of telling parents to be tougher; those parents are struggling as well. The parents themselves have often had complex childhoods, and they need support. That is the pattern and, if we do not fund services correctly and fully, we will see these problems repeated generation after generation.
I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for a very clear and good exposition of the issues involved, particularly in county lines crime, and the fact that children are being exploited. I very much hope the Government will give a clear response to the points raised. It is a wide problem, but it is worth emphasising again that there is a specific issue of local services, both from councils and from community groups. It is a totally false economy to cut back support for this work with young people, because we pay a higher cost in the longer term. I ask the Minister to say something specifically about the support provided by public services and the community to support young people so that they do not fall into this cycle.
In my final minute, I want to say something about the police. We very much rely on the police to look after us, and that is right. That is why it was of particular concern to get the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. It seems that the Metropolitan Police is addressing these issues, and we need to recognise the good work it is doing. Last night the Met Excellence Awards showed the good side of what the police can do. We have to encourage that and root out the problems identified by the noble Baroness’s interim report.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Snape for introducing this very important debate. I also welcome the Minister to his new role. I think it is going to be rather a bed of nails for him. My noble friend and I last worked together on the Select Committee on Crossrail, which after long delays is finally with us. The Minister who is now the new Home Secretary supervised a long delay. Let us hope he will not take so long in dealing with many of the issues confronting us today.
We have had a very important debate, covering a wide front—perhaps there is something there for us to reflect on when we come to address some of these fundamental issues. One thing that came through very clearly is the requirement for more money to be spent in this area. It behoves us to see how we can raise the money. Invariably, it will mean that taxes have to be found in one way or another, but I also share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that there ought to be more fundamental work done in shifting from dealing with the problems that arise in crime to looking at the fundamentals that cause crime in the first instance. That takes us back to really basic issues about the family and so on. Yes, poverty is a very big factor in dealing with this, but the other factor is the poverty of spirit that we now have in the country. We really ought to go back to some basics. Even though we were in poverty, people in my youth did not necessarily commit crime. Therefore, it is not solely an issue that stands on its own ground.
I am grateful to the Lords Library for providing us with an excellent, comprehensive briefing. I am also grateful to the Alcohol Health Alliance for the briefing it provided me on crime and alcohol. It will probably not surprise noble Lords that I will say a few words about the link between crime and alcohol. If I had more time, I could spend as much time on drugs as well, because these are two really major factors that cannot be ignored in the context of trying to find solutions.
Some 53% of police time on casework is spent on alcohol-related issues, in the widest possible sense. That is a very big amount of time. Serious violence is often linked in some way to alcohol. In more than a third of homicides, either the victim or the suspect has consumed alcohol prior to the incident. Alcohol-related violence accounts for two-fifths of all violence in England and Wales, and one in 10 people experiences alcohol-related anti-social behaviour every year. Evidence has demonstrated that the most deprived groups in our society bear this burden to the greatest extent.
Alcohol use can also increase the occurrence and severity of domestic violence, with approximately 1 in 3 victims reporting that the perpetrator was under the influence when they were attacked. Again, those in the lowest socioeconomic groups experience up to 14 times as many incidents of alcohol-related domestic violence, compared to the least deprived.
As my noble friend Lord Snape reported, alcohol is often used to exploit children in the context of county lines. He talked about the county lines problem, and you often do find that there is an alcohol factor. Alcohol-use disorders are significantly more numerous within the prison population. Despite this, the number of those in alcohol and drug treatment in prison has steadily dropped in recent years, again because of a shortage of cash. Volunteer organisations are finding that because of shortages of prison staff, it is very difficult indeed to help people with alcohol and drug problems because they cannot gain entry as they used to and so, in turn, the voluntary services they can offer are not being made available on quite the previous scale. That is no fault of the prison officers. There are just not enough of them to provide the facilities required to admit people from outside.
In England, alcohol-related crime is estimated to cost £11.4 billion per year. Cuts and freezes to alcohol duty since 2012 are estimated to have led to more than 111,000 additional crimes in England. There has also been a large loss of revenue because of the Government’s decision to freeze or cut those duties, although in fairness to the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, one good thing he has done is to reverse the previous Chancellor’s decision to freeze duty on alcohol in the mini-Budget, which is a very welcome change.
With the right package, we can reduce alcohol-related harm by limiting the affordability and availability of alcohol. Two measures were recommended by the World Health Organization as two of the most effective and cost-effective interventions to reduce alcohol consumption and tackle alcohol-fuelled crime. The first is reducing affordability, which is directly linked to consumption levels. As with petrol, if you increase the price, less of it is used. Increase the price of alcohol and there is less consumption. There is much evidence to indicate that this works. We have minimum unit pricing in Scotland, and the Welsh Government have adopted it too. It is high time that the Government turned their attention to this.
In the absence of MUP, Ipswich pioneered “reducing the strength” schemes, reducing the strength of alcohol in the area. There was a very substantial gain in reducing the incidence of street drinking—a 23% reduction by persuading people to move from high-alcohol to lower-alcohol drinks. Anti-social behaviour went down, crime fell in stores and crime overall fell in the Ipswich area.
The second initiative is to reduce availability of alcohol. Why are we able to purchase alcohol all through the night at petrol stations? That invariably will cause trouble. It is not of benefit to society, so we hope again to look at that wide availability.
If I had the time I could speak at length on drugs. There is a fundamental link between alcohol and drugs and violent crime, burglaries and gang activity. Importantly, we now have the Government’s 10-year drug strategy, which I welcome. It is time that they set up an inquiry to see whether we should have a similar strategy for alcohol, particularly in relation to crime and violence.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for the opportunity to debate these issues. It has been an interesting debate, with much of the focus being on policing and resources.
When I joined the Metropolitan Police, in 1976, sometimes it was very busy, you were rushing from one call to another, and it was difficult to empathise with the third burglary victim you visited that day. At other times, there was time to sit on a wall on a housing estate and talk to the skinheads and punk rockers—I am that old. However, not any more. Police are seriously under-resourced and overstretched. Difficult decisions had to be made to cut costs. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the very difficult decision that he had to make when he was Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in the light of those cuts. It is very easy for me to say that I would not have made the cuts that he did. I was not the commissioner at the time and so did not have the accounts.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, talked about cuts during the coalition. Cuts were universal during that time, and we have seen the consequences of unfunded public spending. But, as the noble Lord said, the Conservative Government continued to cut after 2015, when the 2015 Liberal Democrat manifesto said that we wanted to increase public spending in line with economic growth.
Public trust and confidence in the police are essential. The significant reductions in—and, in places, almost total absence of—visible policing, with cuts in police community support officers, have not been restored by this Government. There has been decimation of frontline supervision. Putting a chief superintendent in charge of multiple London boroughs, given that I just about managed to effectively lead one London borough, Lambeth, as a commander—the equivalent of an assistant chief constable—illustrates why we have some of the current problems with the Met.
I fear that it has gone past unreasonable cuts to police budgets. There may now be a culture whereby cuts are used as an excuse not to provide the service the public requires and deserves—a policy-driven situation. Police officers on the front line want to give members of the public the service they deserve, but they are unable to. For example, there was a burglary at the block of flats where I live, and there was CCTV footage of the suspect. Nobody came, and the crime was written off within days. I spoke to a serving superintendent who said that many crimes that could have led to prosecutions are now being written off, rather than being investigated.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, have said, this is about the whole criminal justice system, not just the police. When I made an allegation of homophobic abuse, the police were great. It was a hate crime, to which they responded very positively. Then we went to court, my husband was a witness, and we were both treated as though we were the ones on trial—we were the ones in the dock. He is Norwegian, and he says that he would never give evidence in a British court again after the way he was treated. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, are of course far more compelling.
We operate a system of policing by consent, and the support and co-operation of the public are essential to the police operating effectively. That means we have fewer police, unarmed police, who rely on the public being their eyes and ears and dialling 999 when they see something suspicious and giving evidence in court as witnesses, rather than large numbers of armed police officers acting without the active involvement of the public.
If the public do not like and do not trust the police, it is not just a PR disaster; it makes the police ineffective. We cannot have, and do not want, a police officer on every street corner, routinely armed—policing by force rather than by consent—but without the active support of the public, the current system fails.
I will comment briefly on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talking about young people being seen not as criminals but as victims. When I was the police commander in charge of Brixton, I said that if you randomly stopped a young black man in Brixton, they were statistically far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator of crime. Unfortunately, that was not the way a lot of officers treated them. That is why the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is so important. It is not just about what is morally right about political correctness: it is about treating everyone with dignity and respect, and the fundamental effectiveness of the police, by getting the public on their side.
The Government are clouding the crime figures, claiming that crime is falling, by ignoring the fact that criminals are increasingly moving online, committing telephone fraud by conning vulnerable people—many of them elderly—who can lose their life savings. They are not including these crimes in their publicity. They claim that crime is falling, but when you include online crime, it is actually increasing. But there is hope. The current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, whom I do not know, seems determined to turn things around. Nationally, the police have committed to attending every burglary. In my opinion, either a forensic examiner or a police officer should attend, but only if it is necessary should they both attend.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, the issues of gang violence and knife crime are complex and deep-seated. Restoring a visible police presence may at least stop the vulnerable from carrying knives for their own protection, but only if they believe that the police will be there to protect them, whatever the colour of their skin.
Concerning gangs—here we go, I am going to be controversial—drug law reform needs to be seriously looked at, to take drug dealing out of the hands of criminals and put illegal drug dealers out of business. The two main political parties in this country need to get over the ideological aversion to serious drug law reform. People are dying: from knife crime, from drug misuse and from overdose—including a former partner of mine—because of ideology.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, said, county lines is child criminal exploitation, and the victims of that exploitation need to be treated as such. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, has again reminded us, alcohol misuse is an even bigger problem in terms of the damage that it causes and the drain on police resources.
Not only has the Conservative Party lost the confidence of the public for financial competence; it can no longer claim to be the party of law and order.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in the debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Snape on introducing this incredibly important topic which we discuss here today, and also so many members of your Lordships’ House, who have made really important statements and contributions to this debate.
I will start by saying that the statistics tell us to an extent what is going on, but every statistic is about an individual, a family, a community. I think of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, reminded us of: many of those individuals live in incredibly difficult circumstances of poverty et cetera. Those are never an excuse for a criminal act but are something that we ought to understand. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her contribution, pointed out that it is not only the police but the youth services and all the other services that people depend on that actually matter. Homelessness and housing are clearly one of those as well.
Let us remind ourselves: just over the last few weeks, we have read of horrific crimes. Just a few weeks ago, a nine year-old girl was hideously killed in Liverpool. In the summer, an 87 year-old pensioner was killed in Greenford. Another nine year-old was killed in Lincolnshire. There are regular murders on our streets: as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, pointed out, over 700 homicides last year. I would point out that, whether the statistics are going up or down, that is an awful lot of crime, and violent crime, that is taking place.
I ask the Minister: it would be helpful to know what the actual figures are. It is not helpful that the Office for National Statistics says one thing and the police recorded crime figures say another—which is why I say that violent crime is too high however you measure it. That is the real issue.
My father was a police officer. He was not in the Metropolitan Police when the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was commissioner: it was before then. It was a long time ago. But I know, as the son of a police officer, that he said it was important that, whatever the level of crime, you treat every single crime as the most important crime. That is the point. We can argue about statistics and get carried away with them, but it is actually the crime itself which is important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and others, mentioned the county lines phenomenon. Let me give one statistic that I think should shock us all: 27,000 children are involved in county lines, according to the Children’s Commissioner, some of them under the age of 10. That is an absolute disgrace, and something that this Parliament and our country should be jumping up and down about: that criminal gangs are exploiting children, some as young as eight, in county lines. You can argue why that is, and what has happened, but it should be a priority for any Home Office Minister or Home Secretary to do something about it.
In too many communities, that happens, and it seems that we fail to tackle it. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out, however many police officers have been recruited now, what we need to know is whether they are simply replacing the thousands of police officers that were cut and the neighbourhood policing teams that were slashed, or are we actually seeing an increase in the numbers of officers on our streets?
Let me just ask the Minister some specific questions. Can the Minister tell us what the latest police recorded crime figures for this year are for gun and knife crime? Despite the recent announcements by police chiefs, over the last three years a burglary was reported in 21,000 neighbourhoods in England and Wales, but in 17,000 of those areas, not a single burglary was solved. How will the Government ensure that the recent announcement by police chiefs that a police officer will visit the victim of a burglary is followed through, and that that shocking statistic, which was unearthed recently, will not be repeated in the future?
Is it not true that rape and sexual offences are at a record high, with a woman who is raped having only a one in 77 chance of seeing her attacker prosecuted? Is it not true that police forces are now solving only 6% of reported crimes, down from 15.5% six years ago? How many cases of violent crime are waiting to go to court? There are 58,000 cases waiting to go in front of a judge and jury. The average delay between a crime and verdict is nearly 15 months. How will that reduce violent crime, and why is that not a priority for the Government to solve?
The Government have published their crime plan, because it does not have to be like this. Poverty needs to be tackled, youth services need to be improved, local government needs to be given the money it needs to deliver the services people require, and police numbers need to be dramatically increased with the restoration of neighbourhood policing.
The majority of violent crimes are committed by a small number of offenders, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would be able to point out. How are the Government targeting the offenders who offend again and again to give communities a rest from them but also to give them a chance of preventing their reoffending? My noble friend Lord Davies and others have talked about mental health.
The majority of violent crime takes place in a limited number of hotspots across the country. What are the Government doing to tackle those hotspots of violent crime, where—whatever the level of poverty among the families and communities, to be fair to them—the victims of violent crime are nearly always other people within that neighbourhood? What are the police doing about that?
I want to make an important point to the Minister. It has been demonstrated that the argument that if you push down on hotspots then they occur somewhere else is not true. The evidence does not point to that. If you tackle violence in an area, you reduce violence overall, and that is what has to happen. Can the Minister give us an update on that?
There is no doubt that the Government’s crime plan says that they are going to take action. I say to the Minister that there are a number of particular things that they need to do: the restoration of local government services and youth services; the restoration of neighbourhood policing; targeting particular individuals who perpetrate the majority of offences and concentrating on those offenders; and targeting hotspots. If we were to do that, we could make a real difference.
I said to the Minister that I would cut my remarks short to give him time to respond. The fact is that it is violent crime, crime on the individual such as burglary, that people fear most. What people want to know, and what the Government should push, is that if people report a crime they will be visited by an officer and it will be taken seriously. In that way, we can push down crime wherever and whenever it occurs. We cannot have a situation, whether it is serious crime or less serious crime, where the response to too many people is, “You can have a crime number”. We will not get rid of or reduce crime if that is the response. I do not believe that is what the police want. The first thing we should say to the police is that where a crime occurs we should investigate it, try to find who the perpetrators are and put them before the courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for securing this debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in it. Tackling crime is a key priority for any Government. As set out in our Beating Crime Plan, we are particularly determined to see reductions in homicide, serious violence and neighbourhood crime. These offences strike at our sense of security in our homes, on our streets and in our country, which is why combating them forms a key part of our Beating Crime Plan.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted, at the heart of efforts to reduce crime will always be the police. I pay tribute to the work of the many dedicated police officers who do the difficult and sometimes dangerous job of keeping our communities safe, day in and day out. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, about police morale but, as an ex-policeman myself, joined on the Front Bench today by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, another ex-policeman, we can say categorically that morale is affected by many factors, internal and external.
I detected a degree of gang activity on the Opposition Benches when it came to members of the Government. I will not engage with all of it. I am afraid I will not apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I appreciate that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, was passionately delivered, and I will make sure that the Ministry of Justice is alerted to his contribution in Hansard. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I will visit a petrol station after I have given this speech.
We need to make sure the police service is properly supported and resourced. That is why the Government set a target to recruit an additional 20,000 police officers across England and Wales through the police uplift programme by March 2023. These are new posts. We are on track to succeed: as at 30 June 2022, 13,790 additional officers had been recruited. To the right reverend Prelate’s point, we are actually better than half way.
It is worth remembering that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, the nature of crime has changed and moved, as have our times. If this descended into a debate solely about numbers, we would not be taking into account technology, tactics and all the rest of the factors that go into effective policing.
I turn to some of the specific crime types that are referenced in the title of this debate and that noble Lords have discussed in their contributions today. The Government are determined to reduce serious violence and bear down on violent criminal street gangs. We are pursuing a robust twin-track approach that combines tough enforcement with measures to prevent young people becoming involved in the first place. I will talk to this strategy more in a moment, but first I shall outline the data. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about data; it can of course be used in many ways. He asked me a number of detailed questions about data. I will write to him on all those, because I simply do not have time to address them all. I hope that is acceptable.
I start with serious youth violence. I remember that behind these numbers and percentages, which are of course very dry, there are real people; I am not forgetting that. Serious youth violence, as measured by hospital admissions among under-25s for assault by a sharp object, is falling. In the year ending June 2022 it had fallen by 11% across England compared with the year ending June 2021. We know that those figures, as with all crime, have been affected by the pandemic, and we are not complacent in our efforts to continue to do all we can to reduce violence.
I noted the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, about the surgeon in Peckham, and I commend his efforts. I am afraid she rather lost me at the PM’s pension; I will not go into that. I also noted and was moved by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, about Dea-John Reid. Obviously, my thoughts and prayers are with his family. That is an appalling set of circumstances and I will investigate a little more.
To go back to the serious violence and gang situation, the Government have made £130 million available this financial year, 2022-23, building on similar levels of investment in previous years, to tackle serious violence including murder and knife crime. This includes £64 million for our network of 20 violence reduction units, which are delivering a range of early-intervention and prevention programmes to divert people away from a life of crime, and £30 million for Grip, a police programme that—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—uses a highly data-driven process to identify violence hotspots, often to individual street level, and target operational activity in those areas.
I shall give the noble Lord one specific example of how this works. In a hotspot policing pilot in Southend-on-Sea in Essex, which has recently adopted Grip, a 30% reduction in serious violence on days when patrols took place compared with days when they did not was noted. As he rightly points out, the activity was not displaced. VRUs and targeted police enforcement programmes have prevented an estimated 49,000 violent offences in their first two years of activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, specifically asked me about the West Midlands. It has had £16 million devoted to this programme since 2019, and £5.9 million this year. Its VRU is projected to support more than 21,000 young people in the region next year. The West Midlands is also very active in Grip.
We are determined to do more and to strengthen our response, including in the prevention space, which is why we have invested £200 million through our 10-year youth endowment fund to test and evaluate what works in reducing violence. Next year we will commence the serious violence duty, which will require specified agencies across England and Wales to work together collaboratively, share data and information, and put in place a strategy to prevent and reduce serious violence within their local area.
We will also pilot serious violence reduction orders, which will provide the police with the power to stop and search adults already convicted of knife or offensive weapons offences. Serious violence, as has been noted across the House, destroys lives, shatters families and plagues our communities. The Government remain wholly committed to confronting these crimes wherever and whenever they occur.
The noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Coaker, both referred to the homicide figures. The figures in England have remained relatively stable in recent years. That is not an endorsement, I have to say; I still think they are shockingly high. There were 710 homicides in the year to March 2022, while in the year to March 2020 there were 714. Obviously there was a decrease in homicide in the lockdown year.
I turn to county lines gangs, which were noted, movingly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe—I share her opinion on and outrage about child exploitation—and to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, also referred. They are driving crime across the country, not just by supplying illicit drugs but by perpetrating violence and exploiting the most vulnerable and, in some cases, the very young. Cracking down on this pernicious, poisonous threat is an obvious priority. The Government have a 10-year drugs strategy to save lives and cut crime. We have committed to investing up to £145 million to bolster our flagship county lines programme. The programme has provided targeted investment in those areas with the greatest county lines threat, with dedicated task forces in four key areas—London, Merseyside, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester—but county lines affect all forces, which is why we also established the National County Lines Coordination Centre to co-ordinate a national law enforcement response.
We are bringing the full force of our law enforcement capability to bear in tackling this issue, but we recognise that a wider system response is needed to support those vulnerable individuals being exploited by these gangs. That is why, through the programme, we are investing up to £5 million over the next three years to provide specialist support to victims of county lines exploitation, and their families. From the start of the programme in 2019 until April this year, the police have closed more than 2,400 lines. That includes 8,000 arrests and more than 9,500 individuals engaged through safeguarding interventions. Since April 2022, the programme has delivered a further 500 line closures, bringing the total line closures since the programme was launched in November 2019 to 2,900. It is a move in the right direction, but these gangs are resilient. We are not, and will not be, complacent, so we will continue to target county lines relentlessly, persistently closing them and putting those responsible behind bars.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made a very good point when he reiterated how important civil society is. Much of that is down to local authorities and activities in local areas, but the Supporting Families programme has helped thousands of families across England—162,000 this year alone—through a whole-family approach.
Before I get on to the thorny subject of burglary, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, suggested that the Government are blaming the Mayor of London for the state of play in London. Rather than repeating what I said yesterday in answering the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Lexden about the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, I refer him to Hansard where I endeavoured—I am afraid it is quite boring—to describe the split of accountability and responsibility as it exists in London. We can debate whether it is the right split, but it exists.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, burglary is a particularly harmful crime. The feeling that your own home, which should be a place of safety, has been invaded and your possessions rifled through is distressing and disconcerting. The impact on victims and wider communities can be profound. It is therefore right that proper priority is given to tackling burglary. Of course, primary responsibility for this, as it does for any crime, rests with police forces which are accountable to locally elected police and crime commissioners. It is therefore worrying that in a report published only two months ago, the independent His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services noted that when it comes to tackling burglary and robbery
“too often there is a failure to get the basics of investigation and prevention right.”
I know this is something that the leadership of the police service is very concerned about, and we will continue to work with the police to ensure that they do get the basics right. This is a top priority for the Home Secretary.
Providing reassurance to victims and making sure that evidential leads are followed up is a key part of this. We were therefore very pleased when, just two weeks ago, the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the chief executive of the College of Policing confirmed that chief constables and commissioners in England and Wales had collectively agreed that we should have police attendance at all home burglaries. I want to be clear that the Government are playing their part. As well as the police uplift programme, we have invested £120 million over the past three years in our flagship Safer Streets programme, which is supporting a range of crime prevention measures, including practical measures such as improved home security, street lighting and CCTV. According to the most recent statistics covering the year to March 2022—I appreciate what we have been discussing about statistics—burglary, as recorded by the Office for National Statistics’ Crime Survey for England and Wales, has fallen by 23% compared with the year ending December 2019. Of course, that number was recorded during the pandemic and showed a dramatic 27% decline, but I should note that as lockdown restrictions have eased police have recorded residential burglaries starting to increase a little. The figure for December 2021 was 11% higher than the figure for March 2021, but volumes remain substantially lower than pre pandemic.
The focus on preventing crime, including burglaries, sits across government. One core strand of this is our ambitious whole-of-government drugs strategy, which will drive down the burglary committed by those with a dependence on opiates and crack cocaine, who are responsible for almost half of all acquisitive crime, but I take note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about alcohol. Evidence shows that drug treatment can have an immediate and sustained impact in reducing offending, which is why the Government have committed to expanding and improving treatment and wider support to tackle drug-related offending, which blights communities across the country.
I have had a go at answering all the questions. This has been a very worthwhile debate, and I reiterate my thanks to all who have participated. There is much that all noble Lords who have spoken have agreed on. Crime has a profound effect on victims and the communities where they live, and it is vital that we do everything we can to tackle it. As I have emphasised, this Government are committed to bringing down crime, and I have set out some of the many measures that we, working with colleagues in the police and across the criminal justice system, are taking to achieve that result. Our message is clear: we will not stand by while decent, law-abiding people suffer at the hands of criminals. We will support and empower the police to fight crime in all its guises, and we will use every available tool and resource to keep the public safe.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he address the point I raised about the legal definition of child criminal exploitation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I will have to disappoint the noble Baroness regarding the legal definition, but what I can say is that the data picture for group-based child sexual exploitation is currently poor. However, the Government are improving data quality in policing to support this. We are funding the Tackling Organised Exploitation programme, as well as regional abuse and exploitation analysts in every policing region, to develop enhanced intelligence about all forms of this. I appreciate that that does not answer the noble Baroness’s question, and if I may, I will write to her with a more enhanced answer.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the somewhat unusual circumstances going on in Downing Street, may I draw this debate to a conclusion by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part?
Departure of the Previous Home Secretary
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the answer to the Urgent Question is as follows:
“I am sure that the right honourable Member is aware that breaches of the Ministerial Code are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office, and that is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here to answer the Urgent Question. The Prime Minister took advice from the Cabinet Secretary, as we saw from her letter, and she is clear that it is important that the Ministerial Code is upheld and Cabinet responsibility is respected. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold the highest standards. We have seen her act consistently in that regard.
These were breaches of the code. The Prime Minister expects her Ministers to uphold the Ministerial Code, as the public also rightly expect, and she took the requisite advice from the Cabinet Secretary before taking the decision.
I am mindful that it is not usual policy to comment in detail on such matters, but, if some background would be helpful—I appreciate that much of this is already in the public domain—the documents in question contained draft government policy, which remained subject to Cabinet Committee agreement. Having such documents on a personal email account and sharing them outside of government constituted clear breaches of the code—under sections 2.14 and 2.3, if that is helpful to look at. The Prime Minister is clear that the security of government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility, and Ministers must be held to the highest standards.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the earlier statement about the crisis in government. I had intended to ask a number of questions about the resignation or sacking of the Home Secretary and, indeed, ask whether he could say anything more about the resignation or sacking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had one of the shortest-serving Chancellors of the Exchequer in history, the shortest-serving Home Secretary ever and now, as we were sitting in the Chamber waiting for the statement, the Prime Minister has announced her resignation.
What an utter shambles this Government are. Crisis after crisis is heaped on this Government and yet, who is paying the price for that? It is the people of this country, who are seeing food prices go up and increased fuel bills, and they do not know what is happening to their mortgage payments. The Government think the answer to all this is to reshuffle the deck chairs on the “Titanic”. Perhaps the noble Earl is answering questions today because he is the only member of the Government left. This is not a game of pass the parcel, whereby the office of Prime Minister is in the personal gift of the Conservative Party, which can keep passing it on like it is Buggins’s turn. That is not how it works.
I said yesterday at the Dispatch Box on another issue that the Prime Minister’s job is one of the most important in the country. It is a job that brings enormous responsibility, particularly when the country is in such a state. This Government now have no mandate to govern. Replacing the top person with another top person who has been around the Cabinet table for all the years that have led to this crisis will not address it. The next Prime Minister who serves this country needs to have the consent of the British people. It is a straightforward issue: no Government should be able to govern without consent.
This morning I did an interview on BBC Essex with a very articulate and distressed member of the Conservative Party and a Liberal Democrat. The lady from the Conservative Party came on to defend the Government and say that there should not be a general election. She had changed her mind overnight after the shenanigans in the other place. So, there are a number of questions to be asked about the resignation of the Home Secretary, but there is a greater and more fundamental question that the Government need to address as a matter of urgency. There is no mandate for this Government any longer. It is not just a case of taking one person from the top and putting in someone else. Each time we have seen the change, there has been a fundamental shift in policy. This is not what the people of this country voted for. It is time for the Government to seek a mandate, move over and let somebody else run the country who can do it better.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has to say on various issues that are not really relevant to this exact Urgent Question. She mentioned the situation relating to the former Home Secretary and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fact is that it was clear that there was a breach in Cabinet confidentiality and a breach of the Ministerial Code. This was accepted by my right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, who immediately resigned. As far as my right honourable friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, as noble Lords know, the Prime Minister can request a resignation for any number of reasons. Details of the former Chancellor’s resignation were shared in the exchange of letters last Friday. These are different cases with different causes.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is blindingly obvious from the former Home Secretary’s resignation letter that the underlying reasons for her departure from the Government were fundamental disagreements within Cabinet on fundamental policy issues. How can the Conservative Party continue when even members of the Cabinet are fighting each other? Now that two Prime Ministers have resigned, how can this Government continue to treat the electorate with contempt by refusing to call a general election? When will Conservative MPs do their patriotic duty, put country before party and trigger a general election?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I will make the same comment that I made in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on the relevance of that to the Urgent Question but I note what the noble Lord has said.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, first, I agree with everything that my noble friend the shadow Leader of the House said. Secondly, although it is water under the bridge, if I may ask about the actual Statement, I understand the point made that there was a breach of the Ministerial Code but can the noble Earl tell the House exactly how this came to light?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as I understand the situation, my right honourable friend the former Home Secretary shared a document with somebody outside government and realised her error. I also understand that another individual was copied in on her email and brought it to the attention of the powers that be.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that there will be a full Statement in your Lordships’ House on Monday? I feel very sorry for him. He is not in a position to give details and always behaves with impeccable courtesy to the House. But we need a full a Statement on Monday, coupled with an assurance that the choice of the leader of the Conservative Party in another place will be taken by the Members of the other place and nobody else. The absurd election procedure we went through recently did infinite damage to the country and to the reputation of democracy in general. It is important that this is resolved; it is then of course up to the new Prime Minister to take into account the points made from the Opposition Benches this afternoon.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cormack asks whether a Statement could be made on Monday. Of course, I cannot promise that. I am sure that if there is anything that the House is required to be aware of at some stage, it will be informed of such. I will pass on those comments to my noble friend the Chief Whip. My noble friend also talked about the election of a new leader of the Conservative Party; that is, of course, up to others and is more of an internal matter.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, if a Prime Minister resigns on a Thursday afternoon, why does this House have to wait until Monday for a Statement from the Dispatch Box? Who is running this ship for the next three days?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, asks who is running the ship. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stays in post as Prime Minister at present and the House will be made aware of any information that it should be made aware of in due time.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, to be politically neutral, I have a question of a different kind. I do not want to diminish what has been said, but we are going to have a new Prime Minister and then another, and then maybe an election and another Prime Minister. There could be a whole series of Prime Ministers. Can we go back to the question of the Ministerial Code and take this opportunity to have a look at the extent to which the Prime Minister of the day is in charge of that code and its enforcement?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his comments. He makes some very valid points and I will of course pass them on to the relevant Minister in the Cabinet Office.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may ask two brief questions. First, and this is directed not just to the Minister but to members of his party, if they have not done so, will they consider looking at the video of Sir Charles Walker, which is on BBC News at the moment, talking about the current state of his party and some of the people who have risen well above their pay grade? Perhaps they might look at it and consider it carefully. Secondly, may I have some advice? I am coming in tomorrow morning as part of a “Learn with the Lords” session to speak to no fewer than four schools. I would be grateful for any suggestions as to the sort of answers I might give to some of the questions I might receive.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has been in the House for some years. He will be very much aware of the great work their Lordships do on the scrutiny of legislation, debating issues and holding the Executive to account. So I will not be able to tell the noble Lord how he should respond to this group of schoolchildren but I am sure he will do it very well.
As for the matter relating to my honourable friend Sir Charles Walker, I am sure many people have viewed that video because I think it is on social media.
Net-zero Emissions: Behaviour Change
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to support behaviour change as part of the pathway to net zero emissions.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I appreciate the time given to this debate, despite all that is happening elsewhere in Westminster today. We face many challenging issues as a country and a world, but none is more serious than climate change and the environmental crisis. The context of our debate is the real prospect of global heating of more than 1.5 degrees by the middle of the century, with escalating extreme weather events in the UK and across the world, rising sea levels, devastating fires and floods, significant loss of life and damage to infrastructure, wars over scarce resources, shifting patterns of harvest, an increase in zoonotic disease and a massive displacement of people as large parts of the earth become uninhabitable.
Your Lordships may well have seen the final episode this week of BBC documentary “Frozen Planet II”, detailing the effects of global warming on people and wildlife. The most sinister pictures for me were of the small bubbles of trapped methane being released in great quantities from the permafrost, with devastating consequences for the earth.
It is a privilege to be a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Environment and Climate Change under the able leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Last week we published our first major report, In Our Hands: Behaviour Change for Climate and Environmental Goals, which I commend to the House. My questions to the Government are based on the report’s findings.
The world is agreed that to avert disaster in our lifetimes we need to reach net zero by 2050 or before. That means radical action in this decade and the next. The committee agreed with the Committee on Climate Change that behaviour change is a key element in that journey. Around 32% of the change needed involves some kind of behaviour change. This includes the adoption of new technology and changing habits and practices around diet, transport, heating and consumption. Each of these behaviour changes has significant co-benefits and all have potential economic benefits. They are essential stepping stones on the path to net zero.
Responding to climate change is a challenge for all of us—every individual and family, every charity, every church and faith community, local government and business. The Church of England has an aspiration to reach net zero by 2030. In my own diocese we are encouraging every church to become an eco-congregation and to be a community of change. We initially set aside £10 million, over three years, to begin to insulate more than 400 vicarages across the diocese. All the different agencies must work together, but to do that means common policies and clear leadership.
I believe, personally, that our Government have given imaginative and committed leadership in the area of climate and the environment, including at COP 26 and in the recent Environment Act. The Government have also acknowledged the need for behaviour change across the board. We must all play our part. It is helpful to see government commitments to behaviour change summarised in the Library briefing for this debate. To give one example, the Minister said in your Lordships’ House last year that the Government wanted,
“to make it easier and more affordable for people to shift towards a more sustainable lifestyle while at the same time maintaining freedom of choice and fairness”.—[Official Report, 16/09/21; col. 1571.]
The committee takes a broadly similar view. We know that the public are looking for stronger leadership from the Government in this area. Some 85% of the general public are concerned or very concerned about climate change, double the number from 2016. However, the committee found a very significant gap between what the Government want to do and the leadership actually being offered. There are significant gaps in understanding the challenge from department to department. There is too little joined-up thinking and policy. There are quick wins not being adopted. There are massive areas for development and new policy, particularly around domestic heating, which is the subject of our next inquiry. The leadership and committee structures within government are opaque. There is a lack of expertise and knowledge within government. There has been no real attempt at public information and engagement campaigns. Confusion and discord over public guidance on energy-saving tips for this winter have been reported in just the last week. The party leadership debate that we had over the summer raised real questions about the new Government’s commitment to net zero, which were being worked through yesterday in the other place.
Our report offers a set of recommendations to the Government in this area of leadership. Other speakers will no doubt have other questions to the Minister on other aims. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government will take these concerns and questions seriously and will put real energy, creativity and determination into the process of supporting behaviour change into the future and as a matter of great urgency?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate, the Government and the Minister for proposing and enabling this debate today. It is an extremely important subject. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her committee’s report on this subject, as has been mentioned.
We all agree, I think, that decarbonisation is a very desirable goal, but that aspiration is different from the specific net-zero 2050 policy. That target was essentially invented by the Climate Change Committee in 2019, passed through secondary legislation in this Parliament with limited debate and, since then, has been creating radical change to the economic structure of this country. My own party is just as much to blame for this situation—possibly even more so—as the parties of noble Lords opposite.
To be fair to the Climate Change Committee, it correctly stated in 2019 that there would need to be policy change to deliver this goal. It specifically mentioned decarbonisation of industry, the grid, insulation, renewables, boilers, carbon capture and storage, and so on. Now, however, we find, first, that all these technical measures are extremely expensive to install; secondly, they make energy and normal life very expensive for people; and, thirdly, they are increasing the unreliability of the energy sector, worsened by the destruction of energy supply that is actually reliable and by the addition of too many renewables that destabilise the grid.
We see a situation where the technology does not deliver the goal or aspiration by 2050 and behavioural change is beginning to fill that gap, which I find somewhat troubling. I will make three remarks. First, “behavioural change” is a nice phrase, but let us look at what it actually means: it means making it harder for people to do things that they would otherwise choose to do. One of the Government’s slogans is:
“Make the green choice affordable”.
Another way of putting that is: subsidise substandard and ineffective technologies, chosen politically by government, which people would not choose to use otherwise. Behavioural change, then, reduces human welfare, making people do things that they do not want to do, rather than things they do.
Secondly, if we take the phrase at face value, behavioural change should be voluntary. It means encouraging or nudging, but it often feels as though that is not what is being described. In 2021, the Climate Change Committee said:
“Behaviour change … comes through consumer adoption of low-carbon technologies such as electric cars”.
You do not get any choice about that: from 2030, you have to buy an electric car. That is not nudging but compulsion. The same is true for heat pumps from 2025 and closing roads for cyclists—it is all compulsion.
The same is true of the aspiration to learn from the pandemic set out in the committee’s report, from which I note my noble friend Lord Lilley wisely dissented. Yes, behavioural change was encouraged during the pandemic, but the key aims were achieved by legal compulsion: making it illegal to leave your home and meet people, and fining you if you did so. That is not nudging but simple compulsion, and if people mean legal compulsion, they should say it.
Finally, we are already in a society where far too much is governed by politics, which is too much in every sphere of everyday life. I worry that behavioural change and climate measures are shrinking the private space of individuals. They turn every decision—every time you go to the supermarket or travel—into a political act, which is a bad thing for society. Free societies should have large spaces where there is free choice.
I conclude by urging the Government on this. They have done quite enough encouragement of behavioural change as it is; there is no need for more. The right way to the decarbonisation goal is on the supply side. Provide the energy that people need but do not tell them not to use it. The right way forward is from natural gas to nuclear, with renewables at the margin, and investment in new technology—batteries and hydrogen—so that we have the low-carbon power that a modern industrial society needs. That is the way forward.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am also a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on securing this extremely timely debate so soon after the publication of our committee’s report on the importance of changes to people’s behaviour, by which I mean the importance of securing changes to our behaviour to achieve the legal target of net zero by 2050. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent opening remarks, which set the scene and tone for the debate well.
The Question tabled underlay much of the proceedings of our committee’s inquiry. Helped by the last contribution, this short debate centres on whether the Government have a role to play in encouraging change that will contribute to a lessening of our emissions. It also centres on what that that role is and whether such initiatives are, in themselves, unreasonably restrictive, nannying, bossy or any other word plucked from the Rolodex of adjectives employed reflexively by those ideologically suspicious of any attempt by the state to engage in any way with individual freedom of choice. Lastly, it centres on whether such behaviour change will make a substantive contribution to smoothing our path to net zero.
In conducting this inquiry, the Select Committee heard evidence from across government, industry and the third sector, but I was particularly struck by the evidence we received from former members of the Climate Assembly. Like the vast majority of witnesses, they made it clear in their testimony that the public supported behaviour change and that they were looking for greater government leadership to make it happen. It is unfortunate that the pandemic eclipsed the report’s release in September 2020 and that it consequently gained rather less public traction than its contents deserve. It makes clear that the participants in the assembly regarded cross-party co-operation as essential, that government has a significant educative function in mobilising public consent for the changes needed and that the deliberative process involved in the assembly had motivated each of them to make changes in their individual consumer choices designed to minimise their environmental impact. This is perhaps the best evidence we heard of the effect that education and knowledge can have in prompting individuals to make decisions for the collective good.
To address the concerns of those who feel that the cause of net zero is being hijacked by a group who wish us to regress to some kind of pre-industrial world, I gently point out that at no point in the 550 pages of the assembly’s report is any mention made of abolishing industry, travel and the edifice of post-modern capitalism and returning to some prelapsarian world structured around our circadian rhythms. The citizens’ assembly on climate change was not constrained by moderating voices from inside or, much more importantly, outside government, which allowed it to apply the common sense that led it to balance the demands of business and individuals, supply chains and customers, and individual choice and broader social goods in its deliberations.
Our report takes the same approach. Led by the evidence, we concluded, as we record in the summary:
“People want to know how to play their part in tackling climate change and environmental damage, and the Government is in a unique position to guide the public in changing their behaviours. The Government should provide clarity to individuals about the changes we need to make, in how we travel, what we eat and buy, and how we use energy at home, and should articulate the many co-benefits to health and wellbeing of taking those steps. A public engagement strategy, both to communicate a national narrative and build support for getting to net zero, is urgently required. Behavioural science evidence and best practice show that a combination of policy levers, including regulation and fiscal incentives, must be used by Government, alongside clear communication, as part of a joined-up approach to overcome the barriers to making low-carbon choices. A behavioural lens must be applied consistently—
and this is the important one—
“across all government departments, as too many policies … are still encouraging high carbon and low nature choices.”
To address the concerns of those who feel that the cause of net zero is being hijacked by those who wish that regression, I encourage them—including, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Frost—to actually read both reports before levelling these groundless accusations.
In short, the role the public wish the Government to play is that of an enabler, not an enforcer. Both the assembly’s report and ours are clear that it and we do not wish this—or any future Government—to remove the power of decision-making from individuals. We want them to fashion a context in which the gap between ethical and practical decision-making is closed. For those who wish to preserve individual liberty, including the noble Lord, surely a context within which people can make the decisions they wish to make, on an ethical basis rather than by purely practical considerations, is desirable.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging the report, In Our Hands: Behaviour Change for Climate and Environmental Goals, produced by the Environment and Climate Change Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Parminter. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who, by tabling this debate, has given us an early opportunity to address the crucial role of behaviour change in meeting our net-zero targets—a debate I was hoping would be informed by hard evidence, experience and sound judgment. The future of our planet deserves no less.
That we are in a climate emergency is borne out by hard evidence—the evidence of our own eyes and the experience of those who are already feeling the catastrophic impact of extreme weather events and slow-onset effects such as the depletion of nature and the rise in sea temperatures. I think that a sentence or two here on the evidence for the need for urgent action would not go amiss, given that we still have parliamentarians who deny that climate change is real, that immediate action is necessary and indeed that the public even want change.
There can be few harder indicators of the damage we are doing to our planet than the monthly measure of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere carried out by the Mauna Loa Observatory. The annual peak in May this year was the highest ever, at 422 parts per million of carbon dioxide. In the preceding 800,000 years for which we have ice core data, concentrations have ranged between 170 parts per million to a peak of 300 parts per million. To put this into context, over the mere 150 years since the start of the fossil fuel era, carbon dioxide concentration has rocketed from about 200 parts per million to the 422 parts per million we see today.
We are in uncharted territory. It is a fact that the temperature of our planet rises in tandem with concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The effects of that temperature rise, at a rate unprecedented in geological time, must dictate urgent and immediate action—anyone who denies that is wearing blinkers, quite frankly. Hard evidence clearly says that the Government must act now to fulfil the aims of their laudably ambitious agenda to reach net zero by 2050, with an interim goal of a 78% reduction by 2035. However, the Government’s own advisory body, the globally respected Climate Change Committee, has said that this is unachievable—not difficult, but unachievable—without leadership by the Government and a well-designed campaign to get the public on board. The British public have indicated that they stand ready to play their part; all that they lack is leadership in how best they can do this, and there is plenty of evidence in the report to back that up.
Experience shows that where the Government have taken a lead and delivered a well-designed policy, the results have been positive. Take the example of renewable electricity: emissions from electricity generation have fallen by nearly 70% in the last decade. A second example where clear leadership by the Government has had excellent results is in the uptake of electric vehicles, which are being adopted in greater numbers each year.
I will mention two important areas where decisive leadership from the Government has been sadly lacking. First, the gap in policy for better-insulated homes is, quite frankly, shocking. A well-designed, government-led campaign to effect behaviour change would reduce demand in homes and deliver the co-benefits of reducing emissions and helping to bring down energy costs for vulnerable households. What is holding the Government back? This is a question I would really like the Minister to attempt to answer.
Secondly, agriculture and land use policies are vital to delivering net zero but are virtually non-existent and, like everything that this Government have touched, currently bathed in confusion. Yet it is clear that a well-designed and well-communicated policy will generate a number of co-benefits, not least in long-term food security and biodiversity.
In conclusion, the public have clearly indicated that when behaviour change is urgently needed, they will step up to the mark; for example, with the unusual demands made of them during the days of the Covid pandemic. It is time that the Government too stepped up to the mark.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I too have the happy duty of being a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. I congratulate both my colleague on that committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on having obtained this debate, and the chair of our committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who has been remarkably good in the face of the differing opinions of the committee in reaching what I think is an excellent report.
We as a society have committed to decarbonisation. I hope that we have also committed to allowing a lot more space in our lives for nature. In making those sorts of commitments, we need the Government’s help to see it through. In playing our part, we want to be owning that process and to have a sense of agency, knowing that what we are doing is doing good. But even in the most basic aspects of this, the Government are failing.
Most of us recycle, but do we know what happens to our recycling? In my experience, a lorry turns up and tips my recycling into the back of it; the next sound I hear is the crunching of glass being shattered and mixed in with the paper. What happens after that? Is it all shipped off to Africa? Can someone unmingle it? Is it actually a useful thing to do? No one trusts us with that information. If the Government want us to be part of what is going on, we need to know.
The Government would like us to consider a more vegetarian lifestyle. That is fine; I have been persuaded of that by my daughter and am enjoying the process, except when I go to the shop and find that oat milk is twice the price of cow’s milk. Why? Again, who can help us? The Government should be helping us. You cannot say you want a change and then find that you are asking people to consume half as much of something that should be, according to the theory of things, a great deal cheaper. What is going on? That is what I want the Government to tell us.
Similarly, we are told that we should not travel so much by air, but the cost of a lot of the flights we might take is a third or a quarter of that of the journey by train. Are we being given the honest figures? The answer is no, we are not. We are just told the fuel consumption, not the total cost of the two systems. It is not explained to us why air travel is so much cheaper. Usually, things are cheaper because they have a lower impact on the environment and use fewer resources. Again, the Government owe us some detail.
Similarly—this will come up in our next inquiry—Nesta has shown in a recent report that heat pumps are substantially more expensive to run than gas central heating. Just comparing the fuel consumed by one against the fuel consumed by the other does not give us the total systems impact of changing from one to another. If the Government want us to have agency to be part of the national narrative in making changes that decarbonise the economy, they must share with us the information that allows us to understand and have a grip on the decisions they are asking us to take.
I am sorry that the Government decided not to publish help for people on how to use less fuel and live in a house with the thermostat turned down. I think we need honest, truthful, open information. It helps us sort the myths from reality. I—along with many other noble Lords, I suspect—spent a great deal of my youth in the company of my noble friend Lord Frost’s cousin Jack. We know that, apart from the displeasure of chilblains, it is possible to live without central heating, but none of us wishes to. We are all delighted that we have it, but when we started out with central heating the British kept their thermostats at 15 degrees. It was only the Americans who pushed it above 20, but now people seem to consider that 24 is normal. We need help to get back and reset society, and to think whether we need to have such an impact on the environment or whether we can moderate what we are doing.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am very grateful to have been nominated to join your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee on the retirement of our esteemed colleague Lord Puttnam in January. It is a great privilege. I thank the committee’s excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her welcome and the committee members for their tolerance throughout. I join others in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on securing this debate today, so soon after the committee’s report was published last week—he must have had a premonition.
The Minister and many of his colleagues have already admitted the case and its urgency from the analysis of the Climate Change Committee, yet the paucity of government support is clearly exposed with recommendations for action in this report. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that, without change, human behaviour is proving destructive to the planet, and that should concern us all.
In their net-zero strategy of last October, the Government set out six principles needed to underpin behaviour change. I highlight the three critical elements: make the green choice the easiest; make the green choice affordable; and set out a clear and consistent vision and pathway of how people and businesses can engage to get to net zero and fulfil their role with changed behaviours.
The committee’s report sets out a detailed analysis with clear recommendations. I am glad to be able to keep the report on the agenda, keep raising the issues, and keep the urgency on the Government to respond more fully with an exhaustive reply to the report as soon as possible.
If behaviour change is accepted in all quarters—so that, in the grudging words of the most recent former Secretary of State for Defra, George Eustice:
“Behaviour change is quite integral to many parts of Government policy”—
I would like to concentrate my remarks on the most crucial area of everyday behaviour with the most crucial need for improvement and change: everybody’s homes and buildings. They are where most people spend most of their time. This also highlights a key area for the Government to co-ordinate and encourage with resources and responsibility, namely with local authorities, schools, health authorities and businesses.
The UK’s housing stock is among the oldest and least efficient in the developed world. The private rented sector has some of the least fuel-efficient homes, with high numbers not connected to the grid. Figures from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities show that heat and power currently make up 40% of the UK’s total energy use. In the net-zero strategy, carbon emissions from new-build homes must be around 30% lower than current standards and emissions from other new buildings, including offices and shops, must be reduced by 27%.
Under the heat and building strategy, the future trajectory for the non-domestic minimum energy efficiency standards will be EPC B by 2030. Clearly, the Government must initiate a national engagement strategy to highlight the benefits of improved energy efficiency of homes, which also comes with the benefits of reducing household bills and the cost of living.
As the Minister highlighted at Second Reading of the Energy Prices Bill last night, ECO Plus with ECO 4 needs to be prioritised, and learning the lessons that he recognises from the past failures of the green homes grant is a crucial and central plank to encourage the necessary behaviour change to be embedded in the consciousness of the public. This will call for determination and consistency of support. Results from Climate Assembly UK’s findings into public perceptions on retrofitting homes showed that, in addition to the costs involved, major anxiety concerned the scale of disruption to be lived with throughout the process.
Will the Minister assess whether the new efficiency schemes could reintroduce the landlord energy savings allowance, to permit landlords to offset the purchase and installation of the most important energy-saving measures from their income returns? Have the Government reconsidered the zero-carbon homes measures for housebuilders? Although it is encroaching on the Treasury’s recent confusing energy statements, may I call for consideration of the promotion of green mortgages and reductions in stamp duty should a property qualify with energy-efficiency ratings?
Necessarily, the Government need to prioritise support for energy cost relief this winter. However, they cannot row back on the long-term imperatives necessary to achieve the crucial targets to ensure that net zero can be reached with the least cost.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the speaking limit? He has rather exceeded it.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My last sentence is this: this is the first mixed message the Government must learn to avoid in the report today.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate and apologise that, through my incompetence, I am speaking the gap—although, sadly, because of events in Downing Street the whole debate is likely to slip not through a gap but into a black hole.
The committee on which the right reverend Prelate and I served called for and received evidence about the lifestyle changes necessary to meet net zero. The sixth carbon budget from the CCC provided the answer:
“Around 10% of the emissions saving in our Balanced Pathway in 2035 comes from … Particularly … an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products, reductions in waste, slower growth in flights and reductions in travel demand”—
in short, lifestyle changes. The other 90% comes from industry and households adopting new technologies which are intended to enable us to maintain our lifestyles.
The 10% saving from lifestyle changes was far lower than expected and a disappointment to those who wanted to make us adopt more frugal lifestyles, so the committee decided—quite consciously—to omit the 10% figure and, after the report had been drafted, asked officials to find a larger, headline-grabbing figure. They provided two figures, both of which the committee adopted. The first was that 63% of the required savings rely on
“the involvement of the public in some form.”
Apparently, this includes savings from industry deploying carbon capture and storage; I am not sure what public involvement is required in that, but it is certainly not a lifestyle change.
The second, less outrageous, figure was that 32% of savings rely on
“decisions by individuals and households”.
This was rounded up in the committee’s press release, which claimed that
“a third of emission savings … must come from people changing their behaviours.”
That is doubly disingenuous, first since the bulk of the savings comes not from individuals’ decisions but from removing their right to decide to buy fossil-fuelled cars and boilers in future. Secondly, if electric cars and heat pumps work as their advocates claim, they will not require lifestyle changes. We will be able to drive, not cycle or walk, and heat our homes as at present rather than having to adapt to lower temperatures. Yet the bulk of the report claims that behaviour change will involve more active and frugal lifestyles, which will be good for our bodies and souls.
I respect and like my colleagues on the committee, most notably our brilliant chairman, but the committee’s brazen economy with the truth was sadly distressing. Presumably, it was designed to shield the public from inconvenient facts that might undermine their willingness to go along with the net-zero agenda. The Climate Change Committee showed that we could meet net zero with pretty minimal changes of lifestyle, but some people are so eager to manage our lives that they ignored that advice and advocate re-enacting the hugely intrusive policies of the pandemic, which were mercifully temporary, on what must be a permanent basis. I regret that conclusion.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. We have listened carefully to him throughout our proceedings. I find that, in politics, it is not worth always talking to people you agree with. In our committee, we listened carefully and based our conclusions on the evidence. That is the role of a Select Committee in the House of Lords. The evidence is clear. The noble Lord was in a minority: he was the only member of the committee who disagreed with it. We stand by it.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for calling this important debate on a day when, sadly, the focus will be much more on the evidence of an incompetent Government. In the area of behaviour change, it is quite clear what a competent Government would be doing. First, they would be setting targets for net zero and willing the policies to deliver that. This Government have rightly set targets for net zero, but the evidence is that they will not be reached without members of the public changing their behaviour, both in adopting new technologies and in reducing their carbon consumption. Our report clearly showed that the Government have failed in that second task of willing policies.
Secondly, if they wanted to address behaviour change, a competent Government would be leading. They would be helping the public to make the choices they want. Now, she is not going to be doing any leading any more but, at her conference only last week, the then Prime Minister said:
“I’m not going to tell you what to do or what to think or how to live your life.”
She is not going to be doing that any more, but that is entirely consistent with the mantra of the Government’s net-zero strategy, where they say that they will go only
“with the grain of consumer choice.”
That is not leadership.
Leadership is about understanding that the public care passionately about climate change and want help to get to net zero. Leadership is about giving them the information to enable them to make the choices they need to make and providing the policies to help them get there. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, said, what we need are policies that do not stop people getting to net zero. We are still getting far too many policies that are high-carbon, low-nature. So those are the three things that a competent Government would be doing on behaviour change.
We are about to get a new Government under a new Prime Minister. What do we want them to do? First, there is the opportunity to refresh the net-zero strategy. Chris Skidmore’s review of the strategy is welcome. It means that the Government will not respond to the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations on getting to net zero until next March. This is good. Let us hope that the new Government take the opportunity to refresh the net-zero strategy and put behaviour change at its heart—because they will not get to net zero unless they refresh their strategy.
Secondly, the Government need to bring forward a public engagement campaign. All the evidence shows that public engagement is needed on this issue. I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the BEIS department was unable to persuade No. 10 of the need to spend £15 million or £17 million on a public information campaign to help people reduce their energy bills this winter. It would have done the job of both helping people get to net zero and lowering their energy bills. It is very depressing that the Government were not prepared to make that step. It suggests that a broader campaign on net zero and behaviour change is not going to be forthcoming—but that does not mean it should not be there.
Thirdly, the Government need to be refreshing their policies. We know that you cannot get people to change their behaviour by information alone. All the evidence that we on the committee received showed very clearly that you need the policies to will the means. The Government should use all the tools at their disposal—regulations, fiscal incentives and disincentives—and should address three key areas: how people heat their homes, what people eat and buy and how they travel.
If anything, our committee was perhaps a bit too ambitious in all our recommendations. I have heard both the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, today prioritising a national drive for home insulation. This has to be the priority to help people change their behaviours and tackle what is a massive part of the greenhouse gas emissions that we face.
Those are the three priorities—reviewing the net-zero strategy, committing to a public engagement campaign and willing all the means available through the policy levers at the disposal of the Government. This is what good government looks like, not relying on the ideology we have heard spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I sincerely thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the committee for bringing the debate to this Chamber. We have heard from several of its members today. I thank them for the work that has gone into this. I start by declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I will start by talking about the crises facing the country related to this agenda. How was I to know that there would be a further crisis today, with the announcement from No. 10 and the loss of the Prime Minister? I say that because leadership in this agenda matters. We need to keep our eye firmly on the ball as we go forward.
With respect to the agenda facing us today, we are all too painfully aware that we face three concurrent crises. The cost of living crisis, including energy bills, continues to affect millions of families and businesses across the country. The energy security crisis was created by a lack of government action over the last 12 years and exacerbated by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The impacts of the climate crisis are being felt first-hand all over the world. For all three of these crises, getting to net zero will make a tremendous difference, either by reducing impact or by increasing resilience. Many things need to be done to achieve this, whether by 2050 or by the 2030 target to which the next Labour Government have committed.
The impact of behaviour change, and the actions taken by both individuals and organisations to reduce their energy use, will be significant and an essential part of the journey. Taking people with us will be imperative. This kind of behaviour change does not happen in a vacuum. There are many things that can be done at all levels of government to encourage this change in an effective but not prescriptive way. We have examples from this country and also from Germany, which has seen a dramatic reduction in gas usage as the result of a public information campaign.
We know that the Government have been in the right place on some of this. Last year’s net zero strategy had a subchapter entitled:
“Empowering the public and business to make green choices”,
highlighting the role of those choices in reaching net zero and making a number of positive commitments to act upon this. They committed to exploring and enhancing their public-facing content; to enhancing their Simple Energy Advice service; to supporting businesses, including by exploring a government-led advice service; to increasing awareness of net zero; to empowering both businesses and the public to make green choices; and to making these choices affordable and easy by working with business and industry. However, we know that the Government of last year are not the Government of today—and, until today, we did not know they would not be the Government of tomorrow, either. So, last week, we saw the now soon-to-be former Prime Minister pull a public information campaign to help people cut their energy use, on the grounds of either cost or ideology, depending on who you ask—only, we understand, to U-turn three days later, during Prime Minister’s Questions, a pattern that obviously quickly became a tradition and has contributed to the chaos we are facing today.
Of course, putting it back on the table was the right decision, and the £15 million or so should be seen as a sensible investment, but the lack of leadership in this is frightening. In my city of Leeds, we have a wealth of experience in this area, led by the Leeds Climate Commission. Other local authorities have similar experience to share. We know that successful schemes often need to be driven locally. Alternatives also need to be in place to achieve a modal shift in transport, to inform decisions on change of appliances and fuel sources, and so much more. Without the alternatives, we cannot expect people to change their behaviour.
Motivation other than simply achieving net zero is a great enabler. For example, health concerns contributed massively to the surge in interest in electric vehicles following the scandal of diesel emissions. Most recently, cost of living concerns are driving the imperative and urgent demand for action on energy efficiency schemes, especially for those most at risk of not being able to pay their bills. Accurate, transparent information remains essential in helping people make those decisions. We need leadership at all levels, and I ask the Minister to do everything in his power in the week ahead to make sure that this agenda is at the forefront when the decisions are made that will determine who the new Prime Minister of this country will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank everyone who has contributed. On the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, she is perhaps attributing more power and influence to me than I might have in the selection of the next Prime Minister, but I thank her for her faith in me.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for bringing forward this very important debate on steps the Government will take to support behaviour change as part of the pathway to net zero emissions. I also thank the House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee for its report on the Government’s approach, and all those who contributed to that report. I start by assuring the House that the Government recognise that achieving our net zero target will be challenging and will require enormous changes to our energy systems and infrastructure. I want to reassure the right reverend Prelate that we take the concerns raised in the Select Committee report seriously and will carefully consider all its recommendations.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we know that public concern about climate change is high and has doubled since 2016, with 85% of people telling pollsters that they are either concerned or very concerned, although it is fair to point out that the potential solutions are not as well known to members of the public. Many people think that they are doing their bit by putting their recycling out, which of course they are, but the extent of the additional changes required is quite severe, and I am not sure that there is so much support of that.
Nevertheless, in terms of the information that is given to them, many members of the public have shown that they are willing to make green choices to combat climate change and to reduce their own costs, provided that they are not too severe or too impactful on their everyday lives. As many businesses and civil society organisations are already leading the way in engaging the public on net zero, the role of government is to set the overall direction, our priorities and a narrative to support that transition.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Lilley that we want to support the public in making these green choices in a way that maintains people’s fundamental choices and freedoms. My noble friend Lord Frost made some excellent points but, based on very good Conservative principles, we should be supporting more renewables because they are cheap. The cost of offshore wind is now a sixth of the price of gas-generated power. From good Conservative liberal principles, we should be supporting more of that. I totally accept that he will say, “but it’s intermittent”. He would be right, so we need more baseload power from nuclear and other carbon-free sources. Nevertheless, at the moment, with sky-high gas prices, renewables producers on contracts for difference are paying hundreds of millions of pounds back into the system, because the prices are above their strike price, and are subsidising people’s bills, which would have been even higher without this production.
Whatever view you take on climate change, however sceptical you are, just from an energy security point of view we should be generating more power on our own shores, rather than paying some very unstable and unpleasant people in other parts of the world for our power, and we should be doing this because it is cheap at the moment. The CfD scheme has been so successful, particularly in generating large amounts of offshore wind power, that the rest of Europe is trying to follow us with essentially the same systems. We have very ambitious plans to roll out more of it, but that will probably be quite difficult, given the supply chains and that everybody else will be trying to do the same.
As referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, in our net-zero strategy we set out clear principles outlining how we will empower the public to make green choices by making those choices easier, clearer and more affordable, and by working with industries to remove barriers to those cleaner choices. I can happily assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that we are indeed helping people to know how they can play their part by supporting them in making green choices. It is not through a hectoring campaign or through compulsion, but by providing people with clear advice on what they can do to save themselves money and save the country money. It is set out in our Heat and Buildings Strategy, which is about enabling people to do the same things differently and more sustainably. It sets our approach for engaging the public, both in communicating the challenge and in giving people a say in shaping future policies.
Let me give some examples of government support. We are putting our principles into action using a range of policy measures that support the public to make those greener choices across different sectors. We are of course helping people to travel more sustainably. We are not preventing them from travelling—that would be wrong—but helping them to do it more sustainably by better integrating transport modes, by having more bus routes serving railway stations, and by improved integration of cycling and walking networks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, welcomed the uptake of electric vehicles. We do need that, of course, but we are also investing £2 billion in building more cycle lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods—which have varying degrees of popularity, depending on where they are implemented. We also announced funding worth £200 million for new walking and cycling schemes across England, through a new body called Active Travel England, overseeing 134 fairly ambitious projects. This new body will ensure that the Government’s unprecedented investment in active travel makes the green travel choice easier for the public.
In response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the Government’s approach to decarbonising our heat and buildings is set out in the Heat and Buildings Strategy, which provides a clear long-term framework to enable industry to invest and deliver the transition to low-carbon heating and retrofitting measures, In this strategy, the Government have set out a combination of policy measures to address a range of practical barriers to some of those choices.
From good conservative principles I am also a great believer in energy efficiency. The cheapest energy is that which we do not use. There is some practical advice that we can offer to people—again, not in a hectoring way but clear and simple advice. The one that I am the keenest on is turning your boiler flow temperature down. You can achieve the same heat in your house and be just as warm, but you can do it about 8% to 10% more efficiently, saving on your gas bills, saving the country money—saving taxpayers money at the moment, because we are subsidising energy prices—and helping our energy security. What is not to like about these measures? This is something that we can clearly and easily support, and we will provide advice to the public on how to do things such as that. Many energy companies and others are already doing that, and we will support them in those advice sessions.
We are making the transition to low-carbon heating cheaper for households because—I again agree with my noble friend Lord Frost—people will not make these choices until we make them simple and easier, and we can demonstrate to them that they will save money by adopting measures such as heat pumps and other low-carbon heating measures. We can do that by rolling them out and decreasing the costs over time, but it is very much in its infancy at the moment, so it will take time to build these policies up. Nevertheless, we are supporting the transition with the £450 million boiler upgrade scheme, which is providing £5,000 in capital grants to households. We are also rolling out a consultation on a new market-based incentive for heating system manufacturers.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who referenced the ECO scheme—the energy company obligation—we are boosting its value under ECO 4 from £640 million to £1 billion a year from 2022 to 2026. That will help an additional 450,000 families with measures such as insulation and better boiler control. The noble Lord also referenced the ECO Plus scheme, one of the measures that so far seems to have survived from the mini-Budget.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, on addressing information gaps and helping consumers make informed decisions, this summer we launched a new energy advice page on GOV.UK. I encourage all noble Lords to check it out. This is a website where you can put your personal details in, and it links to the EPC database and provides home owners with personal, tailored advice about the energy performance of their homes. We hope to extend it even further to provide signposts to the different measures of support that are available to people in future. Nevertheless, it provides excellent advice to home owners on how they can save themselves money and increase the country’s energy security.
These policies, which seek to address some of the major practical barriers to individual behaviours, will bolster the low-carbon heating market and create new opportunities for businesses and better choices for consumers. My noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made some acute observations on the affordability of making green choices. Both noble Lords will be aware that Chris Skidmore MP is leading a rapid review of the Government’s approach to net zero to ensure that we deliver on that now legally binding target in an economically efficient and sensible manner. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the review but I believe his intention is to publish by the end of the year.
As I have set out today, the Government recognise that achieving the legally binding net-zero target has to be a shared endeavour and requires action from everyone in society, including people, businesses and the Government. We are committed to taking practical steps to support the public in making green choices in a way that supports their fundamental freedoms, supports their freedom of choice and maintains their individual freedoms. We will continue to take this approach across net-zero policies to support the UK’s transition to a green and sustainable future. As I said, we are carefully considering the recommendations in the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report. We will publish that response in due course, in line with normal parliamentary procedures. I thank the committee for its consideration.
Cost of Living: Public Well-being
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Drake
That this House takes note of the impact of the cost of living on the public wellbeing.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the real and present danger of rising inflation is clearly and obviously undermining public well-being. It is common cause to want to increase growth, but the questions of how to, who benefits and who suffers on the journey plan are at the heart of the markets’ and the public’s failing confidence in the Government. The Government have frightened the ordinary people whose interests they were elected to protect.
The Government are now so deeply divided that chaos will of itself undermine market confidence in the UK. Borrowers faced paying the price for the market’s lack of confidence in the mini-Budget, and millions will now feel the cost of regaining it. The Prime Minister’s Budget undercut key institutions, came with no OBR forecast, lacked detail about costing, worked at cross-purposes with the Bank of England and led to dramatic shifts in the financial markets. Her approach invited no restraint and certainly did not consider public well-being.
Of course there are global pressures, but there is a unique UK government contribution. The chief executive of the Resolution Foundation called it
“the biggest unforced economic policy error of my lifetime … Lower taxes combined with a loss of market confidence mean rising interest rates, leading to higher mortgages and lower living standards.”
Rishi Sunak observed:
“We cannot make it worse. Inflation is the enemy that makes everybody poorer.”
Unfortunately, it was made worse—much worse.
On 23 September the fiscal Statement was delivered against the background of a rising cost of living, weak growth and rising interest rates. Kwasi Kwarteng said that it was
“a new approach for a new era … For too long in this country we have indulged in a fight over redistribution”,—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/22; cols. 934-38.]
and that the new Government would “focus on growth”. That was a defining Statement. It conveyed the view that arguments over redistribution are an indulgence, that planning for the public well-being is separate from achieving economic growth and that the public benefits of growth would trickle down from the spending and investments of rich people and big corporations who are taxed less.
On trickle-down, oh so many authoritative sources reinforce the IMF view:
“We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.”
Gross domestic product is an important measure of national performance. It indicates changes in the size and overall strength of the economy. There is growing recognition, however, of the limitations to the use of GDP because it fails to capture many things that society may value. There is a growing view that traditional economic measures should be complemented by well-being measures to inform policy and spending priorities. To lift from a Bank of England explanation:
“GDP doesn’t tell us anything about how evenly income is split across the population. Growth could mean everyone becoming better off or just the richest segment getting even richer.”
In 2018 the Treasury Green Book guidance on public sector appraisal and evaluation was revised to include references to well-being at all stages of policy development. I doubt that guidance got an airing in the preparation of the mini-Budget. The ONS has a well-being measurement framework consisting of 10 domains. I cannot cover them all but they include the economy, personal finances, where we live, health, personal well-being and the environment. As the FT reported, the ONS September figures confirm the stress that inflation, falling real wages and rising mortgage rates are placing on households, and the proportion in financial difficulty is increasing. One-fifth of Britons are being forced to borrow more to meet payments and half are unable to save at all. One-third have struggled to meet mortgage payments and we have not seen the full extent of the hikes in mortgage rates. Three-quarters—77%—of adults are worried about the rising cost of living. The experience of Step Change, the debt charity, aligns with these findings.
High inflation does not impact everyone equally. New Economics Foundation modelling shows that, on average, price increases have pushed up the cost by £2,300 a year of an essential basket of goods and services—the minimum income standard measured by Centre for Social Policy research. This rise for the poorest half of families is nine times larger than for the richest 5% as a proportion of income, and six times larger for middle-income families. Middle-income families are increasingly impacted. An additional 2.2 million people across 900,000 households will see their incomes fall below that standard in 2022, despite having average earnings from work of £33,000.
These findings and those of the IFS, the Resolution Foundation, the Legatum Institute, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others confirm the importance of uprating universal credit and legacy benefits by inflation for the many stressed individuals and households. You do not get a clean slate by asserting that it is a new era; you have to carry the consequences of the impact on public well-being of the sustained cuts in social security benefits over the past 10 years and the compounding effect of future cuts. Asserting a clean slate is not enough.
Few things are more important for public well-being than a roof over your head, but mortgage rates are up, rents are rising, the stock of housing is stagnating and homelessness is rising. Adults in their 30s and 40s are now three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. Household debt is rising. Household financial resilience is already in decline in the UK. Some households can weather the storm, but many others lack the resilience to do so. Employment benefits, social security benefits, private insurance, savings, affordable credit and fewer pre-existing debts strengthen financial resilience, but all those factors have been weakening. The majority of employers now pay only statutory sick pay of £90.33 a week, 11.5 million adults have less than about £100 in savings and 65% have no form of life or protection insurance.
Recent ONS findings on household financial resilience confirm that the proportion of households in financial difficulty is rising. Its opinions and lifestyle survey uses the affordability of an unexpected expense of £850 as a measure of financial vulnerability to identify those most at risk. More than one-third of adults reported that they could not afford such an expense. The groups more at risk and more likely to report that they could not afford an unexpected expense included adults on lower incomes, 40% of parents, 53% of adult renter households, disabled adults’ households, adults who were divorced or separated and adults in regions outside the south-west, south-east and London.
The Bank of England reported that credit card borrowing rose at its fastest pace in 17 years. When children live in stressed households, their physical and mental health suffers, as do their education and life chances. Increases in child poverty levels in England between 2015 and 2020 were associated with more than 10,000 additional children entering state care. Does the Minister agree with me that the volume of evidence on the stress of households now confirms the importance of uprating universal credit and legacy benefits by the rate of inflation?
Levelling up is a flagship policy that risks stalling. The phrase is disappearing from the Government’s lexicon. Rising inflation will reduce public investment and undermine the very prospects of private investors turbocharging regional growth. It will drive up regional inequalities in economic performance, life chances, health, income, education, children’s wellbeing and public services. If regional inequality is not at the heart of a growth plan, neither is wellbeing.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies observed:
“We’ll know we are on the way to levelling up when differences in health and life expectancy across the country start to drop. Sadly, that’s one measure of inequality that has clearly been moving in the wrong direction over the past decade.”
Female healthy life expectancy at birth in the most deprived areas was 19.3 years less than in the least deprived areas. For males it was 18.6 years less. ONS figures show that since early 2020, almost 400,000 people exited the jobs market with long-term health problems. The Government committed to addressing the wide inequalities in health outcomes between deprived and well-off areas, between white and BAME populations, and between north and south. So where is the promised White Paper on health disparities that was so integral to Boris Johnson’s declared mission to take “bold action” to address them? May I ask the Minister where is the White Paper? Has it been dropped?
The rising cost of living will drive more people into poverty, with serious consequences for health. New polling from the Royal College of Physicians shows that over two-thirds of people are more worried about their ability to stay warm and healthy at home this winter compared to last winter. A recent issue of highlights from the Lancet Public Health emphasises the relationship between changes in individual or household income and mental health and well-being.
The Money and Pensions Service reveals that three in 10 people—30%—report problems with mental health, up from 21%, particularly among the working-age population, linked to worse financial well-being. The Government’s health and social care Statement confirmed that the NHS backlog was rising and acknowledged that there is too much variation in social care across the country. They want to free up beds, with a focus on discharge to home or care home, to address the waiting list of 7 million. Following the scrapping of the health and social care levy, the funding increase for health and social care, based on forecasted receipts that would have been received from the repealed taxes—an estimated £13 billion per year—will now follow from general taxation. How will the Government replace the money that will no longer accrue from the health and social care levy: through raised taxes, more borrowing or public expenditure cuts elsewhere?
The levy was the answer to Boris Johnson’s promise to fix the social care crisis “once and for all”. Is it still the Government’s belief that the funding that will be taken from general taxation, instead of the hypothecated tax, will still fix the social care crisis once and for all, or has their view changed?
Given the stress on households, both economic and well-being measures must be brought into the evaluation of the decisions the Chancellor is currently considering. Market confidence needs to be restored but the public will want to understand the trade-offs the Government will now be making, and the implications for their national interest and their well-being, because currently they cannot—and they will want to know. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has done a characteristically brilliant job of describing the impact of the rising cost of living across the whole landscape. I will focus specifically on the impact of inflation on low-income households, especially those who depend on benefits for their survival. I warn noble Lords up front that this will get techy and dull in parts but, frankly, given what is happening down the other end, a bit of dullness would not do us any harm.
I get really cross when I hear jibes, to this day, about the idle poor and Benefits Street. If we are to be a country where your well-being is not determined solely by having chosen your parents with care, we need a thriving welfare state. We have the basics of it there but we do not need one that is simply a safety net. We also want something that can fulfil its original ambition to be a companion service to the NHS—something that pools risk across the population and across lifetimes, so that we pay in, work and contribute when we can and we take out when we cannot or when our needs are greater. We need a system that helps us: when we cannot work or can work only part-time; when we retire; if we get sick or injured; or if we are caring or bereaved.
We have a system but for it to work, benefits need to keep their value. Prior to 2011, rates were linked to the retail prices index—RPI—or a variation called Rossi. From 2011, they were linked to the consumer prices index—CPI. Incidentally, that RPI to CPI shift saved the Government a lot of money at the expense of the poor. The current measure used for uprating is the CPI 12-month rate for the September before the April when the increases take effect. That gap between September and April is allegedly there to allow the computers to be updated but, at a time of rising, high or unstable inflation, it can cause problems.
For example, the CPI rate in September 2021 was 3.1%, so benefits rose in April by that much; unfortunately, in April inflation was 9%. The CPI rate in the month just gone was 10.1%. Logically, that suggests benefits would rise by 10.1% in April—but if they do, the IFS says that would leave their real value around 6% below pre-pandemic levels, equivalent to about £500 per year for the average out-of-work claimant. That is because the rise last April was so much lower than inflation.
As noble Lords will have heard, many Ministers are now suggesting that CPI inflation uprating is too generous, and that perhaps some lower figure should be chosen. Does this mean that indexing is becoming a one-way bet, so that if inflation is low in September it must be stuck to, but if it is high in September it has to be rethought? What is the argument? Maybe it is that inflation is different for those on lower incomes. In fact, it is different. The ONS figures on inflation show that rising food prices were the biggest driver of rising inflation, at around 14%, but of course the poor spend far more of their income on essentials such as food. The IFS estimated that even with the energy price guarantee, from this month the poorest 1/10th will face an average inflation rate of 14%, compared with 10% for the richest. So maybe Ministers are arguing that these are very special circumstances, and that for one time only we have to move away from uprating by inflation, but let us look at what has happened since 2010.
The coalition Government limited most working-age benefits to a 1% annual increase for three years from 2013-14. The Conservative Government then froze those benefits in cash terms at their 2015-16 levels for another four years, so for seven years the value of benefits was slashed year on year, saving around £4.7 billion. Those cuts are baked in because every year future increases are a percentage of that lower value. That is before I even mention all the other cuts in benefit support—the two-child limit, the benefit cap, the bedroom tax, cuts in housing and council tax benefits, Sure Start and so much more.
Why would they do it? Ministers may say that they had no choice given the financial circumstances but let us look at a detailed study by Ruth Lupton et al, The Coalition’s Social Policy Record 2010-2015, which found that
“the poor bore the brunt of its changes to direct taxes, tax credits and benefits”.
Meanwhile, with the exception of the richest 5%, those in the top half of the distribution were net gainers. The report concluded:
“Perhaps surprisingly, overall the ‘welfare’ cuts and more generous tax allowances balanced each other out, contributing nothing to deficit reduction.”
Those austerity cuts were not needed to cut the deficit but to pay for tax cuts. Recently, when Ministers announced that they were going to cut taxes and might need benefit cuts to pay for them, this was a shift in scale rather than principle—albeit, I grant, a pretty dramatic shift in scale. I still cannot quite believe that we have seen a Government who have imperilled the stability of our entire economy, driven up inflation, interest and mortgage rates, and put pension funds at risk, then have the nerve to suggest that low-income families should pick up the bill for it.
Instability really matters on a macro scale because it shakes markets and makes us all poorer. It also matters on a micro scale because, when you can only just make ends meet, above all you need certainty. I am sure other noble Lords have had similar experiences, but I have never met so many people so scared about how they are going to manage in the weeks and months ahead. They are terrified that they cannot pay their bills, feed their kids or keep a roof over their head. Not only do we now have some 2,500 food banks, but already roughly 1,000 churches and 200 libraries have registered to become warm, welcome spaces because people cannot afford even to sit in their houses and heat them.
The problem with the rollercoaster politics we have been having is that no one trusts anything. Last night BBC News interviewed a pensioner, Betty from Sunderland, about the cost of living. She said:
“It fills you with dread. Are we going to have to start living on what little bit we’ve got saved? When that’s gone, where do we go from there?”
Faisal Islam told her the Government had decided they would after all uprate the state pension. She replied:
“That’s today. What happens tomorrow? They could change their minds by tomorrow because every day they change their minds.”
Quite so. This is not a game It is a life-or-death matter for millions of our citizens and they deserve better. I urge the Government to get a grip or get out.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on her excellent opening speech and refer to my relevant interests in the register.
As we speak, we are witnessing political turmoil of a kind I have not seen in my lifetime. Frankly, we are a laughing stock on the world stage. All of this makes me very angry because it is ordinary people who will pay the price, and that is what we are debating. On 23 September we were already in a cost of living crisis, with the highest inflation in 40 years and the nightmare of out-of-control energy prices. Events since then have caused massive further anxiety, fear and distress for millions of our fellow citizens. The cost of living crisis we are experiencing and the impact on public well-being is simply dire. All the research on well-being shows that not being able to meet basic needs has a negative impact on well-being individually, as families, communities and as a nation.
How did we reach this parlous state? It just does not wash to blame it all on Ukraine and other international factors. The market’s response to the so-called fiscal event of 23 September—the completely unfunded and by far the largest giveaway Budget in 50 years—was instant, brutal and devastating, both for the UK economy and us all as individuals. Sterling plunged; gilt yields rocketed; mortgage rates rose by well over two percentage points; and major players in the pensions market came close to insolvency. The outgoing Prime Minister’s much-lauded but quickly junked growth plan led to the UK losing overnight our much-cherished global reputation for fiscal probity and sound financial management.
Instead of it being a case of going too far too fast, the truth is that the growth plan did not survive its first contact with economic reality. The immediate result was to crash the economy. It is ordinary citizens—particularly the most vulnerable and the lowest paid—who are going to pay the highest price. Fast forward a few weeks: the IFS and others estimate that there is a remaining black hole of around £40 billion still to be bridged in the Chancellor’s Budget on 31 October. The Chancellor has said that he will be identifying a mixture of further extraordinarily painful cuts in public expenditure, together with increases in taxation. No matter what the Chancellor does, however, the UK will be paying a significant political risk premium to lenders not just for months but for years to come. One very visible effect of this is that millions will be paying higher mortgages and rents of several hundred pounds a month for years to come. It is no wonder that people are anxious, and public well-being has nosedived.
Jeremy Hunt has stated that he will be keeping the most vulnerable at the centre of his attention, which is clearly right. However, he is still refusing to confirm that universal credit will be raised next April in line with an inflation figure of well over 10%. The energy price guarantee—which, of course, was very welcome—has now been reduced from two years to six months. History will judge both the politics and the economics, and will allocate blame for the mistakes made on 23 September and subsequent events. Today, however, we are focusing on what we can do to support the millions whose already fragile sense of personal well-being has been further battered by all this turmoil and to protect them from the worst effects of that £40 billion of further cuts and tax increases still to come.
The context is not promising. Inflation is at 10%; food inflation is at 14% and real wages for many are at a 40-year low. According to a recent British Psychological Society survey, 55% of people feel more anxious about being able to pay their bills than they did this time last year; more than a quarter said that worrying about money was making them feel depressed; only 27% felt confident that they will get by financially this winter, and 52% said they were concerned about not being able to afford food. Other recent surveys have shown an estimated 11 million people feeling unable to cope. Anxiety about the rising cost of living is estimated to be affecting half the population; 50% of the population report that they have had to reduce expenditure on essentials—food, toiletries and petrol—over the past few months. Use of food banks, as we have heard, including by people in full-time employment, is skyrocketing. Millions are extremely anxious about how they will be able to feed their families and children. An estimated 1 million children are in food poverty and not receiving free school meals. Fuel poverty is estimated to have tripled, with many saying that they feel too scared to open their energy bills.
This cost of living and well-being crisis requires an urgent and meaningful response. This toxic cycle of mental health problems and money worries demands immediate action from the Government, regulators, employers and firms to stop the cost of living crisis becoming a mental health crisis. Many charities, think tanks and external commentators are generating policy responses and ideas. Foremost among these are: raising all benefits, including universal credit and disability benefits, in line with inflation on 1 December; reviewing and then revising in line with inflation all benefits, not only every 12 months but every six months, starting from next April; moving all children from families living in food poverty into free-school-meal programmes; providing further targeted cost of living payments to vulnerable groups still falling through these new safety nets; strongly encouraging mortgage providers and landlords to restructure payments for those struggling with payments, with a view to minimising home possessions and evictions; requiring the appropriate regulators to work with the energy companies to ensure that they make all possible efforts to secure payment restructuring for bill payers and provide a compassionate response to customers; ensuring energy companies make further financial contributions to the financing of the energy price cap; and ensuring—this is very important—provision of adequate and accessible debt advice services and debt relief schemes to prevent people from spiralling ever further into debt.
Finally, it is vital that the Government commit to funding mental health services, as set out in the NHS Long Term Plan, and publish the promised 10-year cross-government mental health and well-being plan and the health disparities White Paper. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, he can assure me that the measures I have highlighted, and others that we will no doubt hear about today, are being urgently considered.
Finally, there is a time when you have to say, “Enough is enough”. So could the Minister also say when this Government will finally do the decent thing and call a general election?
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, we all know the problem facing our country: as a nation, we have become poorer. Our import prices have risen more than our export prices and, on that account, we are 5% poorer than we were a year or so ago. That is a lot of money—over £100 billion a year—and it is something we cannot escape.
This is the issue that the Chancellor is facing: who should bear the cost of the loss in our national income? It could be working people, the owners of capital or the public services—those are the only three parties that could be cut to bear this cost. Or it could be some combination. This is an agonising dilemma; I think the Chancellor called it “eye-watering”. So how should the Chancellor decide between these three parties and the sub-groups within them? What criterion should he use to make the decisions? The answer of course lies in the brilliant way in which my noble friend formulated the issue for this debate: it should depend on the way in which each of the alternative options would affect the well-being of the population. This is the new approach—it is totally feasible, and we should adopt it.
For example, we know a lot about what affects well-being. The first thing we know is that a loss of real income matters more to the poor than to the rich. To be specific, the loss of £1 hurts a person on low income 10 times more than someone who is 10 times richer. So, as others have said, the top priority for the Chancellor must be, as other speakers have said, to fully protect the real incomes of those on lower incomes.
When it comes to richer citizens, there are real issues about what is most important to them at the margin: is it their own spending power, in real terms, or is it also the services on which they depend? Here, too, well-being science provides important insights. In explaining the spread of well-being, real income is not the most important thing: health always comes top, especially mental health, as the noble Baroness said. Then comes stable family life, happy work and workplaces and safe communities—and only then comes income. When people are asked—in a survey commissioned by Sainsbury’s, for example—about their main worries in daily life, it may surprise Members of this House and the political class that the order is the same: income and debt come about sixth in the list. So public services are crucial to all of the other things that affect well-being, as well as income.
We desperately need a fully functioning NHS, proper social care and a functioning court system—and we do not have any of them. We also need safety on our streets. These services are already under massive pressure, which will get worse due to unanticipated inflation. The last thing they need is further cuts of the kind that are being discussed these days. So, if well-being is the goal, services also have a case for some inflation protection—why are we going to protect only households and not services? At the very least, they should not be subjected to further cuts. To balance the books, we have to look elsewhere: proper taxation of excess profits in the energy sector, for example, and a sensible approach, from next April, to how far we protect the real incomes of families with above-average incomes.
Let me give some illustrative figures that I think are relative to the issue of what is in the interest of people with above-average income. If a person suffers from clinical depression or an anxiety disorder such as PTSD, their well-being—measured in terms of life satisfaction—falls by 0.7 points out of 10. Similar is true of addiction, personality disorder and eating disorders, which wreak havoc on so many families and communities—0.7 points out of 10. By contrast, if a person’s real income is halved, their well-being falls by 0.5 points or less.
Let us apply these apply these numbers to the Chancellor’s dilemma. He could be spending money on psychological treatments. Good ones exist for most mental health conditions but are simply not available to millions of the people who need them. An extra £1 billion a year here would make an incredible difference. By contrast, the Government presently spend £120 billion annually on protecting people’s real incomes. There is a huge difference there.
We could just ask: suppose we took £1 billion away from the protection offered to people with above-average incomes and gave it to mental health? What would happen to well-being? I can tell noble Lords from the evidence that the impact on well-being of giving £1 billion to mental health would be 50 times higher than giving the money to people with above-average incomes. I think that calculations for other public services would confirm the case for at least protecting them, and probably expanding them.
We constantly hear, as if it were shocking, that public expenditure is now at its highest level relative to national income than at any time since the 1940s. Of course, that is just as it should be. It is exactly right. As people get richer, the impact of extra income on their well-being declines. That is what economists for several centuries have called the diminishing marginal utility of income. But if you think about the impact of health on well-being, that remains exactly the same, however rich you are. So do the impacts of ignorance, loneliness, addiction and crime. We should be giving proper attention to the public services which can help us with the things of enduring importance to human beings; in particular, the social infrastructure of their lives.
If we want to maintain national well-being in these difficult times, the top priorities must be to protect the real incomes of the poor—I hope the Minister can say something about that—and to protect the public services on which we all depend.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the cost of living crisis, so catastrophically intensified by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, has been developing for a long time. It was an illusion that inflation had been abolished. Eventually, printing money on an industrial scale by quantitative easing unleashed inflation and central bankers were wrong to suppose it would be transitory. Inflation generates inequality. More than a decade of QE led to a gross inflation of asset prices and vast inequalities of wealth. We know from the research of Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson that more unequal societies suffer more severe pathologies in physical and mental ill health, the well-being of children, teenage pregnancies, drug abuse, violence, prison populations, destruction of trust and of community life.
Combining monetary laxity with fiscal austerity, the policy choice of David Cameron and George Osborne, led to a harsh and damaging erosion of public services and physical environments. We know from the research of Michael Marmot that poor conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age are social determinants of poor health and well-being. Poverty brings anxiety and depression, and people in poverty have suffered more from Covid. The Health Secretary has suppressed the health disparities White Paper, but the Government should acknowledge this. A deregulated private sector and an obstinately misplaced faith in trickle-down economics—the creed of Prime Minister Truss—have produced a long-term stagnation of wages and, in combination with a pitiless scaling down of the social security system, the emergence of a gig economy and a precariat who live in chronic insecurity and economic stress. In-work poverty has become normalised.
The Conservative emasculation of the welfare state—most recently Rishi Sunak’s cut to universal credit, but worse is now threatened—has meant that more and more people have had to rely on food banks. The food banks now report that they are in crisis, dealing with unprecedented demand. People on lower incomes spend a larger proportion of their resources on the items whose cost have shot up the most: food and energy. Food inflation—inflation for the poor—is now around 14%. People are driven to cross off their shopping lists healthier items that have become even more unaffordable. The Food Foundation charity reports that, in September, nearly 20% of low-income families experienced food insecurity. A very worrying number of people say that they have not eaten for a whole day. Professor Marmot warns that the alarming increase in hunger points towards more stress, mental illness, obesity, diabetes and heart disease for those who are worst off.
QE also wrecked the housing market by hugely boosting the prices of homes and rendering it impossible for people on modest incomes with modest savings to buy, or even to rent, a home in large parts of the country. Not to have a secure roof over one’s head, and to despair of entering that state, is profoundly inimical to well-being.
Since 2010, there has been no effective strategy to tackle our central economic problem of poor productivity. Without a strategy for productivity—how are the Government to pay for it now?—we have no prospect of non-inflationary growth and increasing prosperity for all. On top of all these failures, the post-Brexit transition to a new trading relationship with the EU has been handled ineptly. Then came Covid, hammering business, employment and the national finances, as well as creating widespread fear, grief and impoverishment. After that came Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with a further colossal disruption of trade and the disastrous increase in energy costs. So Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng are not the only authors of our present national predicament, but what these callow politicians have done is criminal: at a juncture when sensitivity, caution and competence were crucial, they arrogantly, heartlessly and idiotically made our predicament vastly worse. Their fiscal recklessness has caused the pound to weaken, importing more inflation, and the cost of borrowing has soared for the Government, businesses and home buyers, in what the markets are calling the Truss premium.
At least another £35 billion of spending cuts or tax rises are required. In 2010, cuts in spending were accompanied by monetary easing; the consumer prices index in 2010 was 3%, whereas now it is over 10%. In 2022, we have to look forward to both fiscal and monetary austerity and deep recession, with all the pain and fear that this will bring. People whose pay falls far behind inflation are going to be hungry, cold and frightened.
Throwing away the reputation not just of the Conservative Party but of Britain for financial prudence, resolute control of inflation and competent economic management will cause our country to be poorer and those who are most vulnerable to live in greater poverty and insecurity for a long time to come. The cruelty of the Prime Minister’s hints and throwaway lines—for example, about de-indexing benefits and ending tenants’ security—has been chilling.
To people on the margin, an assault on their living standards will make them sick with anxiety. It will also make them bitter about inequality and the contempt they discern on the part of those who are comfortable and those who govern them. Inflation dissolves the ties that should hold our society together. It robs people of the real value of their income, their savings and such security as they have. It generates mistrust, resentment and fear.
If we are denied a general election, which is clearly what is required given the collapse of the Government and the rotten state of the Conservative Party, we must hope against hope that the new Chancellor and the new Prime Minister will reshape policy to ensure that financial stability and the trust of the markets are restored; and that in the grim process of retrenchment, the broadest backs carry the heaviest burdens and the neediest are protected, while an intelligent strategy for economic reconstruction, with due focus on well-being, is implemented. We need a Labour Government to do this.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this very timely debate. Noble Lords will be surprised to hear that it marks a big step forward in the policy approach taken by the Government. I had been very dubious about the idea of maximising growth, wondering, “Growth of what?” But, thanks to the Leader of the Commons, we now know that the focus of the current Prime Minister
“is on the wellbeing of every one of our citizens.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/22; col. 378.]
Wow. That is an incredible surprise. I very much hope that the next Prime Minister will continue that emphasis.
Let us be clear: maximising GDP growth is really stupid. It is not something that any grown-up would want to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, GDP basically measures a pound, irrespective of who gets it; one pound to the millionaire counts the same for GDP as one pound to someone on universal credit; and one pound to someone in the richest part of the country counts the same as one pound to someone in the poorest, most deprived part. So how do you reconcile levelling up with maximising GDP growth? They are wildly inconsistent. On top of this, Simon Kuznets, the economist who put together GDP in the 1930s, begged us not to use it as a measure of success; it is a measure of activity.
Having been a Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, I can tell you that maximising GDP growth is completely straightforward. I could do it like that. I could concrete over the south-east of England and build lots of houses or, if you want something a bit more radical, I could explain that we should just get rid of charities and volunteers: we should stop anyone volunteering and tell them they have to get out on the streets and take up prostitution or selling illegal drugs, because both of those count in GDP, but volunteers do not. You would have to be stupid to think about maximising GDP.
There is a far superior goal, which Richard—the noble Lord, Lord Layard—has worked on tirelessly for many years: maximising well-being and, in particular, reducing inequalities in well-being. The simplest way to raise well-being for all is to work on those at the lowest levels of well-being, as the noble Lord laid out. That would mean, first, spending a lot more money on mental health services. We know how to do this.
As the noble Lord said on the cost of living crisis, this is a terms of trade effect. There will be costs and they will hit people on lower incomes in particular. If we respond by cutting public spending, those who rely on those services will be damaged even more. You will have a really bad well-being impact if you go down the route that we are beginning to think might happen.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, the Chancellor has a handy little book that can tell him what to do: the Treasury Green Book on investment appraisal. It has supplementary guidance on well-being, which has just been updated. I commend that to the Chancellor—let us hope he is still there. I understand he is not standing to be the next leader, so let us hope he is still around.
Let us imagine that we are going to take this seriously; that we are going to have a well-being approach to handling the current cost of living crisis. What would you do? First, you would look again at the energy support package. You are giving a lot of money to a lot of very rich people. You could target that support much better and get a massively bigger well-being impact using the numbers that Richard—the noble Lord, Lord Layard—mentioned.
Secondly—we have just had this debate—the Behavioural Insights Team, which I am proud to have had a role in setting up, should be working 24/7 to give us the tools and information that can allow us to improve our energy efficiency. We are being far too timid and far too slow. All we need to do is go to Germany. German energy usage is down by 20%. They are turning off the lights at 9 o’clock in Berlin. Public buildings have been ratcheted down. There are lots of things we could do. We need to get on with this now, encouraging people and allowing them to make those really sensible decisions. So, get those going.
Thirdly, seeing the former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in his place, I know that he will be completely with me on this. We have serious issues in the economy with labour shortages. One of the things we should be thinking very carefully about is, how do we entice the over-50s back into the workforce? What kind of incentive structures should we be providing? Are they really improving their well-being by deciding they have given up on the world of work? There are lots of things about the world of work which enhance one’s status and well-being. There really is something there.
Fourthly, please can we have a bit of stability and predictability in government policy? A very good former colleague in the Treasury was saying to me that if we did have pictures of Chancellors on the wall in the Treasury—which we do not—it would look like the “Employee of the Month”. We have had four in four months. I said this to David Cameron when we talked to the Opposition before the 2010 Election. He said, “Okay, I’ve told you what I’m thinking of doing; what would you like from me?” My No. 1 request was stability among Ministers, so that they get to be in their post for a long time and get to work well with the civil servants. I think that is massively good.
We have lots of uncertainty that is bound to spook financial markets. Uncertainty about which benefits are going to be cut, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, is difficult. We emphasise the poor, which is absolutely right, but I read the piece by James Coney in the Sunday Times on the fact that there are middle-income people who, equally, are very disturbed by what is going on.
The fifth point is something very close to the heart, and which I am working on in my role as chair of Pro Bono Economics. We should be working closely with charities and philanthropists. We have a proud history of generosity demonstrated powerfully by the public’s response to the pandemic and Ukraine crisis. Can we help charities that work to improve employment, boost education and skills, reduce inequalities in life expectancy, and create conditions for entrepreneurship in places that most need local economic revival? I have just come back from meeting some civil servants in Darlington and talking about philanthropy in Newcastle. Lots of things could happen there.
Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, estimates that the charity sector generates £180 billion of social value every year. Philanthropic investment can bring very distinctive benefits alongside private and public sector investment. Doing things to maximise the impact of philanthropy across the country would be tremendous.
Finally, Ministers should think about the well-being of public servants. The prospect of cuts in real pay and redundancies is bound to damage morale. Treating them with respect and thanking them for their work costs nothing and would be a very good start.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I welcome this moving and timely debate and the opportunity to highlight the consequences of the rising cost of living and its impact on well-being. I particularly want to focus on the well-being of children.
Psalm 41 begins with the words, “Blessed are those who consider the poor”—a reminder, if we need one, that the well-being of the whole nation is enhanced or diminished by the way we respond to those most in need. This insight is shared by all the great faith traditions.
So let us consider the poor, especially children caught in poverty and the impact of that on their well-being. The Children’s Society published its Good Childhood Report a few weeks ago. The stats have been quoted already. Some 85% of parents and carers are concerned about how the cost of living crisis will affect their families; that is nearly everybody. A third of families reported that they are already struggling with the costs of school trips and uniforms over the next year. A recent Action for Children survey report found that nearly half of children worry about their family finances—but, of course, many children’s needs are much more basic.
The diocese of Oxford has more than 280 primary and secondary schools across three counties in one of the better-off parts of the country. But heads and governors report that more and more effort is having to be invested in feeding children and other forms of social care. Our director of education tells me that many of our schools are even now having to meet basic needs through providing food parcels, giving away school uniforms, brokering support from local charities, washing school uniforms—even buying beds.
This means that time and energy are being drawn away from the primary focus of schools: to educate. Every teacher knows that it is impossible for children who are hungry to learn well. Schools report that their budgets are being squeezed through rising energy costs and rising salary costs for which they have not received extra funding. One head writes:
“The only way to break even this year will be to cut teaching and support staff, reduce educational opportunities and school visits, and keep the heating off.”
The impact on well-being for this generation of children, already affected by Covid, will be obvious.
All churches are reporting rapid escalation in food bank support and food bank use. Over the past year, I have personally visited many food banks and meals services in urban and rural areas. In 2011, one-third of churches were involved in supporting food banks. By 2016, that had risen to two-thirds. Last year, it was 80% of churches in rural and urban areas. The Trussell Trust estimates an increase in the use of food banks of 128% since 2015. I wonder: can the Government begin to imagine or plan for a time when food bank use decreases and some of our food banks go out of business, as they all want to do?
As other noble Lords have argued, the problems are deep seated. Poverty has been rising for a decade. The impact of Covid and now the cost of living crisis multiply the effect on health and well-being. We as a society should never grow used to children being hungry or families being eroded by lack of hope and an inability to meet basic needs. Many of the local support services and small charities that have sustained their communities during Covid are now overstretched. The infrastructure that has formed a safety net and contributes so much to well-being is now itself vulnerable.
I recognise the Government’s constant pledge to help the poorest, but I underline from the evidence and experience locally that the situation is getting worse, not better, and that has been the trend for many years. I repeat the call that many others have made for benefits to be increased in line with inflation; for the proper, generous funding of schools; and for co-ordinated support for charities to help the poorest. Above all, in the light of the Budget and the events of this week, I call on the Government to consider still more deeply this new and different metric, and to aim not simply for economic growth but for greater, deeper equality and fairness as a measure of society’s well-being.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others have mentioned, the research of Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson in The Spirit Level, and the stream which has flowed from that, demonstrate the connection between measures of inequality in a society and its whole well-being. The most equal societies are also the more content. Those most in need want and need to know that the Government have abandoned trickle-down economics and are applying a spirit level of fairness to the economic plans of the nation.
We need to keep alive a vision for the United Kingdom where no child is hungry; where the safety nets are robust; where child poverty is reducing; and where food banks are in decline. The well-being of the nation is now very fragile. To the incoming Prime Minister, I say, “Please don’t make it worse. Do all you can to make it better. Don’t allow the costs of the economic downturn to be borne by children and the poorest”. Blessed are those who consider the poor.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her characteristic enterprise in securing this debate at this particular time. Not many people will envy the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the moment, as he wrestles with shifting the trajectory of the economy from the feckless spending of his predecessor to what looks like a big bout of painful austerity, with cuts, cuts and more cuts coming our way. As a result of the calamity of the last few weeks, we are poorer, shakier and more feeble. That is bad news for all of us who care deeply for the future of the country. We know from experience who suffers most in periods of austerity, and references have been made to this by previous speakers. We know it is the poor, the old, the young and people who were on the breadline before the crisis and who now face the avalanche of soaring food, housing and energy prices—a devastating prospect. This time it must be the comfortable who step forward and carry the heaviest burdens, not the vulnerable and hard pressed.
For sure, some of the reasons for this are global, as the Government claim. But not all are; some we know are home made. Step forward the team of ignominy—the European Research Group, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute—all of whom have earned a place in the dock for the Truss-Kwarteng calamity. The great irony is that the team of ignominy believed that they were taking back control, as they promised in the EU referendum of 2016. Under their blueprint, we would shake off the EU’s shackles, jettison Brussels’ constraints and become sole masters of our destiny. Yet, “Take back control” was always a delusion and the Government have now been blasted by a reminder that there is no such thing as pure sovereignty. Of course, it was not the EU that dictated a whole new policy direction for our economy; it was the money markets. They have taken back control—not for the first time in British economic history.
The UK has just learned the hard way that it cannot announce £43 billion of unfunded tax cuts as a time of high debt and rising inflation. The markets would not have it and acted brutally to remind the UK of some painful lessons. Many of us across the political spectrum hoped that we had seen the end of post-imperial delusions about the UK as a world power, able to be fully sovereign and free of external constraints. We hoped those days were over. We were wrong; the delusion is alive. It was the underlying principle of the leave campaign in 2016. It was central to the Truss leadership campaign, and it shaped her first few weeks in office. It is a vain dream. Just as Suez made us face our military and diplomatic limitations, so should the Conservative Party stop using nostalgia as its guiding star for the future.
I have three suggestions for the Chancellor on public well-being. First, make sure that the vulnerable and poor do not bear the price of austerity. This is a national crisis, and we need to approach it with the same “all in it together” spirit that we have displayed in previous crises in our history.
The Chancellor could start, for example, by opening discussions with the TUC and following the example of ex-Chancellor Sunak when the furlough scheme was introduced. I think all sides in those talks were surprised by the positive outcome. This would be more practical and useful than introducing yet another anti-trade union law, in the form of the Bill that is to be published. The current Chancellor has taken a fresh perspective on things; he should now attempt to stop this Government smacking the unions. Specifically, the Chancellor should prioritise benefit claimants, particularly those on universal credit, and increase the real value of UC, as was done in the lockdown. That was important then and would be important now. That was a recommendation, by the way, of the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords.
Secondly, the Chancellor should protect our already creaking public services. Whether it is health, social care, education, benefits, the police and justice, prisons or many others, they are all struggling and are ill equipped to cope with a new period of austerity. It is tax that must take the strain to avoid a further deterioration in our public services. The financial burdens must fall on those best placed to pay.
My final suggestion is that, having carried through Brexit—a decision I still bitterly resent, by the way—we must get Brexit done properly by aligning the UK very closely with the EU single market. Our export performance has been woeful since Brexit. Firms, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, have given up trying to export to the EU because of the hassle and red tape involved. The existing treaty is not working, not just in Northern Ireland but between Britain and the EU generally. We need to reset the relationship with the EU and do it quickly. There is much to do, particularly by the rich and comfortable, to help poorer citizens on low pay and benefits, who are more dependent on public services, to get through this crisis. Let there be no more wallowing in past glory. In his Statement in a couple of weeks, the Chancellor must relegate nostalgia to the Last Night of the Proms.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that this debate is about a number of issues in our society. I certainly welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lady Drake—no one better than her, perhaps, with her trade union background. Indeed, she once worked for my old union, the National Union of Public Employees. We shall have the pleasure of hearing from another speaker who worked for the National Union of Public Employees, in my noble friend Lady Merron, later in the debate.
It is clear from what my noble friend Lady Drake said that she is aware of the issues I intend to raise. Indeed, it is becoming something of an old chestnut of mine: I have raised in this place, on numerous occasions, the plight of carers in our society. In this short speech, therefore, I wish to return to that issue, to raise the lack of recognition of the important part played by social services, which has been neglected by successive Governments. Ministers, including the last two Prime Ministers, have expressed that importance but done very little to rectify the plight that these workers endure. The Government rightly emphasise, from time to time, the massive problems of the National Health Service and often raise the plight of doctors and nurses, yet do little about their problems. They place even less emphasis on the problems of ancillary workers in the service. Attention should be drawn to the problems faced by doctors and nurses, but never are those equal problems in the social services sector generally raised by the same Ministers. They too play a vital role in the National Health Service family, and they too deserve recognition for the important duties they perform.
I particularly wish to dwell on the plight of low-paid carers. The cost of living is affecting the well-being of low-paid workers generally in our society, but nowhere is it more obvious or more damaging than in how it affects the social services sector. The Conservative manifesto laid out how they would fix social care and its problems, but the Government clearly have not met that pledge, along with many others. Just last week, Skills for Care published its annual report on the state of the social care workforce. Four out of every five jobs in the wider economy pay more than the median wage for care workers. Care workers are facing unprecedented levels of stress and financial worry, some turning to work other than the work they love. As Carers UK said, it is a choice between heating and eating.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that there are currently 165,000 vacant posts in the care sector, the highest number on record. Staff turnover rates remain alarmingly high, with nearly a third of care workers leaving their jobs each year, as they are underpaid and undervalued. The Government are failing to meet this challenge to convince enough workers to stay or to join the care sector, which they will not do until there is fairer pay and improved working conditions. It is no wonder that so many carers are leaving the job they love to join Tesco and other supermarkets. They would rather stay in the job they love, doing the rewarding work they do, than stack shelves in the Tescos of this world.
I hope that my words and, much more, those of other speakers in this debate make an impact on the Government, and that the Government realise the importance of this debate to those who have taken part and act accordingly.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this is a very serious debate. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, brought this vital question to the Floor of this Chamber.
It is perhaps disappointing to see the vast swathes of Conservative red Benches without any Members on them. At the moment, for the record, we have the Minister, we have the Whip, and we have the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, who I am delighted to see in her place. Other than that, there have been perhaps six Conservative Peers in the Chamber at certain points. I realise that we are speaking on a day of considerable turbulence for the Government and the country, but we have been in a state of considerable turbulence for some weeks. Indeed, we have been in some turbulence since Liz Truss became Prime Minister at the start of September.
This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the Minister and the Whip to their places. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, I believe, was gazetted on 7 October and took his seat in your Lordships’ House a mere 10 days ago. They have been a very interesting 10 days. I suspect that the two people on the Government Front Bench are here not necessarily because they put their names down voluntarily, in the way that most of us who had signed up to speak today did, but rather because it was felt that they needed to come out to speak on behalf of the Government to respond to one of the most urgent questions in this country: the impact of the cost of living on public welfare.
This is surely what the Government should be about. There are two things that really matter: one is the security of the nation—defence—but the other is ensuring that every man, woman and child living in this country has enough to eat, has a roof over their head, and can heat that home. We cannot guarantee that in 2022. What sort of country do the Government think we are living in? This is a country where the Prime Minister and others were so keen in pledging to get Brexit done that they said we had this fabulous economy—we were the fifth-largest economy in the world. If that is true, why are 69% of people worried about heating and eating? Why is the Royal College of Physicians saying that vast numbers of people are more concerned this year than last year about whether they can heat their homes and eat?
There are major problems in this country, and it is not acceptable for the Government to claim that it is all to do with Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Yes, that is part of it. Yes, there is inflation, and there are grain problems elsewhere in the world. Yes, there is an energy crisis. But other countries are not facing the difficulties that the United Kingdom is facing, because we have added a degree of chaos and instability, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, pointed out. Instability is a major problem. The Government’s mini-Budget spooked the markets, and however many U-turns there are, that spooking of the markets and the increase in interest and mortgage rates will not be overturned overnight. Changing the Chancellor, changing the Prime Minister, even—dare I say it—changing the Government will not change those difficulties, which are now baked into the system. However good the next Prime Minister is—of whichever political persuasion—some of the difficulties brought about in the last three weeks by this Government are going to be the legacy that we all have to pay for, including those who are still at school, because the national debt is going to be paid back, not in weeks and months, but over generations. I would like the Government to apologise for that, and I am sorry that there are not more Conservatives here to apologise as well.
It is not normal, I realise, in your Lordships’ House to be perhaps quite so partisan, but some of the difficulties we are facing can be put only at the door of the outgoing Prime Minister and the recently departed Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is very little that can be done to overcome some of those difficulties. Those difficulties are substantial: we have already heard about the difficulties for those on benefits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, spoke about so movingly. However, there is something that the Government can do: make a commitment—and stick to it—about uprating benefits in line with inflation, while at the same time sticking with the pensions triple lock. It will be difficult but they should at least try to persuade people that when they finally make a commitment on one of these vital issues, they will stick to it.
At the moment, we are seeing children going hungry—the danger of malnutrition even in this leading first-world country in the 21st century. That is not acceptable. Will the Government commit to ensuring that every child that needs them gets free school meals? They should not be excluded from free school meals because somehow they do not quite meet the metric that the Government have assumed. Those children who are hungry, who have arrived at school without breakfast and who cannot afford school meals are not going to be able to study effectively. That means they are not just being damaged now, at this time of a cost of living crisis; it will damage their prospects for the whole of their lives unless we do something to protect them right now.
In 2020 it took a footballer, Marcus Rashford, to change the Government’s mind. In those days the Prime Minister was Boris Johnson, and he made U-turns twice on providing free meals to children during school holidays. On 12 November 2020 the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—currently the Deputy Prime Minister—Thérèse Coffey issued a statement following the U-turn regarding Christmas 2020. She stated:
“We want to make sure vulnerable people feel cared for throughout this difficult time and, above all, no one should go hungry or be unable to pay their bills this winter.”
Can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s view, two years later, that no one should go hungry and everyone should have a warm home?
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Drake on initiating this very timely debate, given the challenges that our communities face. Many of the speeches today have been very detailed and, with great eloquence, have explained the cause at the heart of why so many people’s well-being is not what we would want it to be. That is down to the economic choices that this Government have made—the economic choices that they claimed they had to make, for which there was no alternative. Many of the contributions have detailed what the alternatives are, and they are still there for the Minister to take.
Understanding people’s experience is crucial for the credibility and accountability of public policy and, perhaps even more important for me, for the functioning of a democracy. When people believe that the Government do not know or care what their experience is, if people believe that their interests will never be represented, in my view their faith in the institutions of democracy is fundamentally undermined. This Government are playing fast and loose not only with the economy and our futures but with the very principles of democracy in our society. Why should you vote if it never makes a difference? Why should you vote or participate if no one cares about or values your experience and tries to ameliorate it? Why would you vote if you believed there was no justice in our society because the Government believe that if you give money to the people who have the most, somehow that will benefit all of us in the future?
The relentless rise in the cost of living has already taken a terrible toll on the well-being of many people in this country, particularly those on lower incomes. Measurements of well-being are about how well a person’s life is going, how they perceive themselves and how they experience their lives. What they are seeing is that the cost of living crisis, as it continues to deepen through 2023 and 2024, will fundamentally change their lives. How can it be right that a Government sacrifice their citizens’ well-being for an economic policy that does not even work, and change their minds about what it should be just about every day?
We live in a society where pensioners live in fear of not being able to pay their bills, and families are terrified that they are going to lose their homes. Across the country, millions of households are fretting about how they are going to pay for rising food and energy costs. First-time buyers cruelly had their opportunities to buy a house snatched away by the Government’s mini-Budget, after years when they had scrimped and saved for a home. People cannot afford to pay private rents because they are too high, and local authorities are unable to provide social housing for the many, which they desperately want to do. Child poverty is rising. Children are living in homes which cannot afford to be heated, without enough nutrition and food for their development. Children, who are the responsibility of all of us, are having their life chances snatched away from them before they have even had the opportunity to develop their potential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the British Psychological Society’s survey about people’s attitudes to their well-being. I looked at the OECD figures, which make shocking reading. Shame on us that these figures show us below the average of OECD members. The share of the population at risk of depression—31%—is a very big number out of 68 million, and the share of the population at risk of anxiety is also 31%. The share of the population with very low life satisfaction is 9%. The figures show inequality between top earners and the bottom growing and growing. Inequalities between men and women in the UK, on every measurement, are below the OECD.
As the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said, this is not difficult to put right. There are alternatives. What are the Government going to do to reverse the downward trend on well-being? What policies will they put in place to build financial resilience, including benefit up-rating and investment in our public services? What policies will the Government bring forward—assuming they are still in power next week—to restore the quality of life of households, reduce stress and reduce anxiety, give people confidence for tomorrow, next week and next year, and give them hope that actually their lives will get better? If the Minister cannot answer those questions and cannot lay that out to this House today, this Government do not deserve to be in power and a general election should be called.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Drake on securing this vital debate. Opinion formers and mainstream media have latched on to the phrase “cost of living crisis”. In reality, it is a crisis of poverty, inequality, failed economic policies, an irresponsive state and democracy that is preventing millions of people from living a fulfilling life. The crisis has been incubating for years, and the main reason for that are the failed ideologies that the party opposite seems to venerate.
There is a twofold attack on people’s well-being—first, by shrinking their disposable incomes and, secondly, through an escalating cost of living, with inflation as measured by RPI already at over 12%, taxes at a 70-year high and, just last month, food prices increasing by nearly 15%. The weak pound means that we also importing inflation. Yet the Government have no strategy for dealing with corporate profiteering at all. If anything, the Government’s mantra is to further shrink people’s disposable income by cuts in real wages, pensions and public services that enable people to get healthcare and related services.
Due to government policies, the richest 250 people in this country are now worth nearly £711 billion compared to only £658 billion the year before. Clearly there is no cost of living crisis for the rich—or the rich people who donate to the Conservative Party. However, there is a cost of living crisis for the rest of the people. While many have been getting rich, the living standards of the masses are now lower than the average for developed countries. The Financial Times reported that the poorest 20% in Ireland have a standard of living almost 63% higher than the equivalent poorest in the UK. In 1976, workers’ share of GDP in this country, in the form of wages and salary, was 65.1%. Following attacks on trade unions, zero-hour contracts, fire and re-hire and other policies, that share is now down to 50%. It is not really surprising that people cannot get access to good food, housing, education, pensions, healthcare and much more.
Even before the pandemic and the energy price crisis, some 14.5 million people were living in poverty. This included 8.1 million working-age adults and 4.3 million children. That number is expected to hit 16 million to 18 million before long. Thanks to the Government’s policies, 21 million adults in this country have an annual income of less than £12,570. Has any Minister tried to live on that and see how they manage? Even with the freezing of energy tariffs announced by the Truss Government—we do not know what the next one will be called—some 6.7 million households are in fuel poverty. If the Government do not continue their support beyond next April, that number is expected to rise to over 11 million.
Some 800,000 children do not even get free school meals because their parents have income of more than £7,400. The tax system favoured by the Government clobbers the poorest. The poorest 10% of households pay 47.6% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes. The richest 10% pay only 33.5%
In the face of the Government abandoning their duties to their citizens, people have to rely on charity for survival. Teachers, nurses and the police are relying on food banks. There are 1,400 Trussell Trust food banks and, in addition, nearly 1,200 independent food banks. They dished out 2.1 million emergency food packages in the last year, and 832,000 of them went to children.
Our senior citizens are taking endless bus trips and huddling in libraries, shopping malls and warm hubs just to stay warm. In case the Minister wheels out the slogan, “We are providing energy help”, I remind him that even with that help, energy prices have more than doubled. The Government have somehow managed to find a magic money tree and conjured up £65 billion to bail out the gilts market, but the same magic tree is never really plucked to eradicate poverty, reduce inequalities or make investment in public services.
This Government have set unprecedented records: let me give the House some examples. A study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has reported that there were 334,000 excess deaths in the period from 2012 to 2019. The cause was austerity. In 2016, Exercise Cygnus concluded that the NHS would struggle to cope with a serious outbreak of flu—an epidemic. The Government’s response was not to fund the NHS properly; they reduced the number of beds per capita in the UK. Despite the heroic efforts of NHS staff, 208,000 people died from Covid. Within the NHS, 117,000 people died last year while waiting for hospital appointments. The charity Marie Curie has reported that 93,000 people died from poverty in 2019. No previous Government have killed so many of their own people. Why have this Government not reflected on this organised democide in the name of their defunct economic ideology? We need a public inquiry into the real human cost of what the Government have done, and we need it as soon as possible.
The Government are not reflecting on what they have done to the people. We have Chancellors who are promising even more austerity, saying, “Yes, every public department has to be cut; there will have to be more cuts to people’s wages and benefits”. At the same time we have patriotic millionaires urging the Government, “Please tax us more”, but the Government will not do it. The Government could easily raise billions, for example by taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income. If they applied that to capital gains it would raise £25 billion, which could be used to reduce inequalities, but the Government are not going to do that. Finally, I say: for God’s sake, please go and let the Labour Government do the proper thing for the country.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for securing this really important debate, because some of the hidden and long-term impacts of the cost of living, such as how well-being is affected, have not been given sufficient attention, especially by this Government. I welcome the many calls to action and recommendations that have been made, including the one for a general election. That may be the favourite one today. Before I share my concerns, I draw attention to my interests set out in the register.
As already highlighted, because of the incredible financial hardship that people face in Britain today they are having to use food banks to make ends meet. It is not just people who receive benefits but those who are working, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, just highlighted—those workers who kept our country moving on the front line, including nurses and health workers who risked their lives for us. But now, because they cannot afford to feed their families, they are leaving the jobs they love and moving out of the NHS, resulting in a shortage of staff. That crisis is already happening. It means that we have not enough nurses on wards to look after patients; patients are therefore put at risk. The cost of living crisis is therefore impacting on the well-being of patients in our hospitals.
We are not going to see fewer patients going into hospitals; we are likely to see more people ending up in hospital because of the cost of living. When people starve themselves, they are not taking in the right levels of nutrients, which will weaken their immune systems. This means they are more likely to get sick and end up in hospital—and the pandemic is not yet over.
The cost of living crisis will also impact physical health in many other ways. To make money go further, families will opt to buy cheap food. This means more families will buy processed food, which is linked to diabetes. The number of people with diabetes will increase. Research shows that by 2030 one in 10 people will be living with diabetes, but that does not take into consideration the cost of living at the moment; the numbers are likely to be a lot greater. Diabetes is associated with kidney disease, heart disease and some cancers.
It is not just physical health that is affected and that we need to worry about; mental health will also worsen. Compared with men, women earn less and are more likely to work part-time. This means that they will increase their working hours or take on a second or third job. We know that is what the Government want—they have made that clear—but that is not right. Women will have less time for self-care and less time to spend with their children. Surely that will impact their mental health and that of their children.
Another impact of the cost of living is domestic abuse. We know that cases rose during the pandemic, and the cost of living will increase the risk of domestic and economic abuse. It will also mean that victims struggle to leave perpetrators because they will not be able to afford to, putting themselves and their children at risk of harm. Their mental health will also worsen.
It is clear from what we have heard today that people in Britain are surviving, not thriving. Is this the Britain we want? We are supposed to be a wealthy nation. We should not see people struggling; no one should be struggling. People on benefits are made to feel like a burden. We keep hearing about compassionate conservatism, but I feel that these are empty words. Compassion, kindness and empathy are the very principles that make this country great, but this Government have lost their way.
The Government are storing up physical and mental health problems for the future—problems likely to result in long-term unemployment and disabilities. I ask the Government: what is the plan to protect the health and well-being of the nation, threatened by the cost of living? What action will be taken to prevent health inequalities being further exacerbated? What will be done to reduce them?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who has obviously made a flying start to her career in this House. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Drake on securing this important debate and on her eloquent exposition of so many aspects of the issues we are discussing. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned the survey conducted by the British Psychological Society and gave us some statistics. I would like to quote the chief executive, who said in relation to that survey:
“The cost of living crisis is critical, immediate and severe and disproportionately impacting those that need support the most. As well as the practicalities of being able to heat homes and put food on the table, people are also carrying the mental health load of living under this strain. We are incredibly concerned that many simply will be unable to cope, with nowhere to turn to get help as services are already stretched and struggling to cope with soaring demand.”
The Government have capped the price of energy, but the cap is estimated to cause average bills to rise by more than 150% over last year’s figures. Now the Chancellor has announced that that guarantee will last only until April, by which time the average energy bill is expected to be 400% greater than last year. Could anything be more calculated to undermine public well-being and increase
“the mental health load of living under this strain”?
The other side of the equation is income. Others have spoken of benefits and pensions; I would like to say a word about wages. Average regular pay is currently £574 a week. Its value in real terms has been declining for a decade. Wages are so low that, for several years, more people claimed universal credit who were in work than were out of work. The value of wages this year, under this Government, is falling faster than ever. The loss is, according to the ONS, on average at least 3.2% per annum. The latest figures show that the nominal wage increase is running at 5.4%, whereas the consumer price index with housing—CPIH—is rising at 8.5%. As noble Lords have pointed out, for food it is rising at 14%.
In the public sector, where average wage increases are running at 2.2%, the cut in the real value of wages is even more stark. Indeed, even if the 3.2% cut, on the basis of the ONS calculation, is the median annual wage loss, half of our workforce of 30 million are suffering greater wage cuts than that.
My noble friend Lady Primarolo referred to the OECD. In its annual Employment Outlook 2022, published a fortnight ago, it stated:
“The impact of rising inflation on real incomes is larger for lower-income households which have already borne the brunt of the COVID-19 crisis.”
The decline in the real value of wages by reason of pay not keeping up with prices is, of course, a global phenomenon—although, globally, the UK scores particularly badly on that metric.
The OECD highlights that one of the causes of the fall in real wages is that
“the proportion of workers who are covered by collective agreements in the OECD has steadily declined over the last three decades … weakening the bargaining power of workers … In the absence of countervailing power by organised labour, employers typically retain significant power to unilaterally determine wages and working conditions. Bargaining power is typically lower for vulnerable groups: while this is a source of concern even in low-inflation conditions, it becomes more serious in the current relatively high-inflation situation as these workers are not in a position to negotiate wage increases to keep up with price increases.”
The OECD recommendation is simple:
“Protecting living standards also requires rebalancing bargaining power between employers and workers, so that workers can effectively bargain for their wage on a level playing field … Rebalancing bargaining power, however, also means giving a new impetus to collective bargaining and, therefore, accompanying the efforts of unions and employer organisations to expand their membership and enlarge the coverage of collective agreements.”
This, of course, has been advocated by the International Labour Organization since the Second World War. Even the IMF has recommended the extension of collective bargaining, and nowhere is this more necessary than in the United Kingdom, where collective bargaining coverage has fallen from 85% in the 1970s to less than 25% of workers today covered by a collective agreement—from one of the highest coverages in Europe to one of the lowest. Yet high collective-bargaining coverage is one of the hallmarks of the most successful economies in Europe.
In the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, published today, I was appalled to see yet further restrictions on the capacity of workers to protect their wages by taking strike action where persuasion fails. But I was surprised and encouraged to read that the Bill imposes a mandatory obligation on employers and unions to negotiate a collective agreement. Unfortunately, such an agreement is confined by the Bill to agreeing a minimum service level in the event of a strike.
With this remarkable precedent having been set, I hope the Minister can tell us that compulsory collective bargaining will be extended to all sectors of the economy, covering pay and terms and conditions of employment—the matters that really affect the well-being of the half of our population whose work supports the entire population. If they took this step, the Government would be following many global precedents, notably in New Zealand and the practices of western Europe, as well as the exhortations of the ILO and the OECD. In doing so, they would be exercising the only real option open to them to address falling wages.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for initiating this debate and for comprehensively and analytically setting out the context. My comments concern the education of children, particularly those with special educational needs, as well as the impact of years of underfunding on the morale of teachers, parents and schools.
Having read an article in a local paper by a parent of a child with special educational needs, about the fear they feel at the prospect of more cuts, I made my own inquiries and found a situation that makes me also fear for the future of these children, particularly those from disadvantaged homes, and their education across the country. I found that schools in general feel very undervalued and the lowest priority of Governments. I was told:
“Every year we need to do more with less and it is simply unsustainable”.
I am including direct comments from schools and parents, so I apologise if they sound slightly out of context.
The first thing to say is that not having enough funding encompasses just about every problem in any school, and the effects are: not enough teachers or assistants in the classroom, so schools cannot deliver an individualised education for disabled pupils and those with special educational needs; provisions for personal growth and mental health cannot be met with not enough staff, and neither can early intervention; and alternative provisions for those most in need are not fit for purpose: students have been refused places in schools that are specialised and should be meeting their needs. But, if a specialised school, with all the equipment and funding, deems a child “too difficult”, how is a mainstream school supposed to deliver an effective education and a safe place for that child, with no specialised provisions or training?
There is very limited language provision. When 25% of a school does not speak English, even as a second language, there is no access to or funding for translators. One translator on one morning a week for six weeks does not cover the revolving door of refugees from places such as Afghanistan and Ukraine. Staff work very hard with these children to give them the best possible chance and to provide some stability, only for them to be moved on, with other schools refusing to take them. One refugee child could not get a school to take him because of disabilities, which is of course devastating for the child.
The increase in teaching assistants’ wages of around 10% is very much welcomed, but this now has to be funded by the school’s budget, so the choice is between having fewer teaching assistants or cutting the school’s budget in another way. Having fewer teaching assistants impacts on the quality of teaching and learning. Already, not all classes have a general teaching assistant to support those who need extra help.
Energy cost measures apparently apply only to residential premises, so schools will have to find the funds to meet the increases in energy, or not heat classrooms. One school has estimated increases of 230%.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, feeding children is also extremely important. Free school meals are grossly underfunded, and they struggle to offer a good nutritious meal for the price, including vegetarian, halal and kosher alternatives. Children are not engaged and ready to learn if they are hungry, and this might be their only hot meal of the day. A large proportion of pupils in the school I mentioned—43%—receive free school meals.
Parents too feel that they have been left high and dry and fear that worse is to come. Many of them suffered indignity and encountered rudeness in fighting for their children’s rights. The education, health and care plans which have replaced statements are also a cause of great concern. They are supposed to take 20 weeks to achieve but in some cases it is 50 to 70 weeks, fraught with numerous assessments and shed loads of bureaucracy. Mainstream schools focused on performance are reluctant to make proper provision for children with special educational needs.
Council services are starved of cash, so parent support groups, play groups and social arrangements for children with special needs and learning difficulties are closed due to lack of funding. There is heavy reliance on private provision. This is very expensive and many councils now have enormous debts in their special educational needs departments, which are in crisis. All this is happening now, before anything in the future budgets. It is clear that the system cannot bear any more cuts without threats to the very existence of many schools and services.
The current system clearly needs reform. It already offers woefully inadequate services to the most disadvantaged children, particularly those with special educational needs and those with disabilities. I hope that the Minister might propose some form of in-depth review of what is clearly a failing service.
We have heard ample evidence throughout the debate that current services cannot sustain future cuts. Indeed, they are in danger of collapse already. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, spoke about indexing and the link to reality, and proper systems to protect us all. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned the effect of poverty on anxiety and mental health, and fear and insecurity and the need for reassurance with health and advice. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, underlined the importance of services to all sectors of the population and providing for their enduring needs. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned inequality and how that leads to poor physical and mental health as well as social problems. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, talked about well-being and the importance of targeting, as well as energy efficiency and labour shortages. All these concern different departments of state. It seems to me that one of the most important messages from this debate is that poverty concerns all the services; it certainly should not be left as being led by the concerns of the Treasury. I hope that message will hit home.
I urge the Government to protect our children, particularly those who are already disadvantaged, from any further attempt to cut essential services. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, children’s futures are on the line. Our country will pay the price if we do not face up to our responsibilities and make sure that children are fully protected in these difficult times.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as the cost of living continues to spiral, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Drake on securing this timely debate focusing on the most pertinent issues of the day and speaking up for the many people whose health and well-being are deeply affected by a crisis that can only be said to have been made in Downing Street. I thank my noble friend for the incisive, informed and comprehensive way she set out the situation.
Over the course of the debate, I have been very struck by the way that noble Lords have so powerfully highlighted the inextricable link between the cost of living and our well-being. I have also been struck that throughout the debate I have kept coming back to just one question: how did the Government consider this link, if at all? Perhaps the Minister can offer some reflection on this point.
With inflation hitting over 10%, food inflation running at over 14% and millions worrying about their household finances, there is no sense that the Government have done anything other than make decisions that have sent costs through the proverbial roof. As my noble friend Lady Drake said, by choice the Government have made everything worse. The Prime Minister may have resigned, but the Government remain in office. As my noble friend Lady Smith said in the Chamber earlier today, this Government now have no mandate. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is time for the people of this country to have their voices heard and their votes counted.
We know that good nutrition, shelter and the ability to lead a dignified life are essential foundations of good health. If unaddressed, rising living costs will leave people in health-harming—even life-threatening—situations in the short term, while embedding a public health time bomb for the future. It is not now just economists but public health leaders who are sounding the alarm about the health consequences of failing to protect communities and individuals from the cost of living crisis engulfing our nation. So I ask the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of the short-, medium- and long-term effects of the cost of living crisis? I am also interested to hear his response to the proposal from my noble friend Lord Sikka for an inquiry, especially given the anticipated extent of further cuts to public services in particular.
We know that the impact of the cost of living crisis is not felt equally or fairly: quite simply, those who have less suffer more. This have been borne out by the Office for National Statistics, which reminds us that the extent to which the rising cost of living has a financial impact on different households is very much based on
“factors including their expenditure patterns and their ability to absorb increased outgoings.”
This was referred to by my noble friend Lady Drake, who also emphasised the impact of the lack of financial resilience of lower-income households.
Analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the least well off are experiencing higher rates of inflation, while the New Economics Foundation confirms that the costs of the poorest are nine times higher than those of the richest 5% of society. Of course, key to addressing much of this will be the health disparities White Paper. The Minister will remember that last week I asked whether reports were true that this White Paper was not going to be published. Perhaps he might be good enough to provide a response today. If the reports are not true, when can we expect it to be published?
As my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord Monks and other noble Lords outlined, for those relying on welfare benefits, whether they are in work or not, inflation is not their friend. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us that, if the Government uprate benefits by earnings rather than inflation, they will push a further 450,000 people into poverty. This will also increase poverty among working families by 350,000 more people, and families with a disabled person by a further 250,000, of whom a quarter are children. Could the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what discussions there have been with the Department for Work and Pensions about the health impact of failing to uprate benefits to reflect the reality of the cost of living? Following on from the comments of my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Pendry, where is the workforce plan to address low pay and record vacancy rates in the NHS and social care workforce—something that has been raised repeatedly in your Lordships’ House?
Many health conditions are caused or exacerbated by cold homes, and the cost of living deeply affects how people use their heating at home. Often, homes are heated less frequently and to a lower temperature to try to save money, and this can be a particularly acute problem for those who are older and disabled. Children and young people living in cold homes are more likely to suffer from respiratory and mental health problems. Cold homes can also have an adverse effect on the educational attainment of young people and increase the risk of social isolation.
Overall, cold housing costs the NHS in England an estimated £1.36 billion per annum and contributes to the excess winter deaths which take place every year in the UK. Can the Minister tell the House how he will deal with this rise in unheated homes? Can he share any analysis that the Government have completed regarding the consequences of fuel poverty for public health and death rates this winter and beyond?
When prices rise across the board, it is eminently understandable that households may choose the cheapest, and often the unhealthiest, food and drink, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, spoke of. The Food Foundation has found that 50% of people are buying fewer fresh vegetables and less fresh fruit. We know that people are paying £571 more on average for their groceries this year than last year and, as my noble friend Lord Howarth referred to, the latest data from the Food Foundation shows that nearly one in five households experienced food insecurity last month, which manifested in eating less or going a day without eating.
We know that food poverty is a driver of poor physical and mental health, including chronic diet-related conditions such as obesity and cardiovascular disease. As the right reverend Prelate said, experiencing food insecurity can limit children’s development and affect their ability to concentrate and engage in school, reducing educational attainment and long-term life chances.
Regrettably, the Government gave what I regard as an inadequate response to the opportunity presented by the national food strategy. Will the Minister revisit this? What will the Government do to make sure that those who are less well off can afford and access nutritious food at this time?
As we have heard in this debate, the mental health implications of the challenges the public are facing right now are heart-breaking. A Childhood Trust survey found that 23% of parents said that due to the impact of the cost of living, their children are expressing more anger, and more than one in five said that their children are smiling less. Stress, uncertainty, anxiety, inadequate income and having no cushion to fall back on all affect mental health and, as many noble Lords have said, people are scared. In June, the Lancet published an analysis of existing studies on the relationship between lower incomes and poorer mental health and well-being. Does the Minister accept this link and, if so, how will he address it?
In conclusion, I refer to the comments of my noble friend Lady Primarolo, who asked how the Government could sacrifice the well-being of people in this country in pursuit of ever-changing policies. This is a question for the Minister and his colleagues. I hope that what has been said today will impact the Minister’s response. A healthy population and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin and, right now, we have neither.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for securing this important debate, and all noble Lords across the Chamber who have contributed to the constructive and thoughtful discussion. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I found the debate fascinating and respond with pleasure.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for framing the debate in terms of the ONS study on public welfare and for highlighting that to me ahead of time. I welcome the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Layard—it is good to see my ex-lecturer at LSE— and the thoughtful contributions from the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I believe this is an excellent basket of measures which should act as a North Star for the Government. Many moons ago, I worked a lot in Nigeria setting up digital TV, and I learned that one of the poorest countries in the world can actually be one of the happiest.
I would like to look at the impact of the cost of living on those 10 measures. I have excluded two—the environment and governance—because I was not sure how much the cost of living impacted them. I am not so sure on the governance point now, but that may be above my pay grade anyway. As I reply, I will look at how the cost of living measures impact the other areas: personal well-being, our relationships, our health, what we do, where we live, our personal finance, the economy, education and skills. I will not pretend today to have all the answers, but what I will try to do, crucially, as requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, is set out what the Government are doing to ameliorate the impact of the cost of living in these areas.
I turn first to energy prices, which we probably all agree is having the biggest cost of living impact. Of course, it is driven by the Russian war in Ukraine, but brought home to us here on our doorsteps. Many speakers today have mentioned this, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Smith, Lady Primarolo and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. It impacts our personal finance in terms of the well-being measures, the economy and, as many have said, our health. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, its impact is as much as £1.4 billion a year.
I think we all agree that the price freeze was bold and decisive and has united support from all sides of the political spectrum. It gave peace of mind to all households. To echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, 77% of households are anxious about the impact of fuel prices on the cost of living. A measure that seeks to address this for all households will go a long way towards removing that anxiety, bringing financial stability to many households and helping them with their health and well-being.
At the same time, I think we probably accept the comments about whether we should have more targeted support. We will review that after six months. It is probably a sensible thing to do to make sure that we are using such a large investment of public money in the best way possible. In the meantime, in addition to the price freeze, the Government have sought to act to make sure that the 8 million poorest households receive an extra £650 per year.
Thirdly, I turn to the price freeze for business and institutions. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, that also applies to schools for the next six months. The price freeze will help the whole economy because industry, schools and hospitals are all impacted by the increase in the cost of fuel. It will help the whole economy and jobs and, by helping to keep inflation down by as much as 5%, it will have knock-on benefits in terms of the level of interest rates needed to contain inflation.
Undoubtedly, as mentioned by many speakers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, all this has had an impact on interest rates and inflation. While I am sure we all recognise the need to increase interest rates to reduce inflation and the impact that that has on mortgage costs, it would be blind not to recognise the turbulence in the markets caused by the mini-Budget, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
The impact on the cost of government debt, mortgages and our ability to finance our spending plans is crucial and affects us all in terms of public well-being. So I think we would all agree that the inescapable truth from the past few weeks is that we must find a way to make sure that, as necessary as energy price caps are and as important as investment in health and other services is, we show financial discipline and show that we can live within our means. We have to give confidence to the markets to bring down the cost of government debt and mortgages, which we know have such an impact on every single household.
To that point, I welcome the comment on the stability of Ministers. Speaking as a Minister of only three weeks, I wish for some stability. However, again, I believe that that is above my pay grade.
I want to place what we are doing in the context of needing to work within this fiscal constraint. The markets have demonstrably proved that we must live within our means.
I turn next to food prices; again, this point was recognised by many speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. Food insecurity clearly has an impact on health, but it also impacts productivity, the economy, education and skills—all key measures of quality of life and well-being. That is why it is so important that we make sure that our children have a nutritious upbringing, which is why the free school meals programme is so important. All infant school kids get a free school meal, as introduced by the Government. Today, that 37.5% level is the highest on record, I believe.
So we are trying to give children a good foundation by having a healthy start and healthy food at school. We are also expanding that with a £200 million holidays and activities food programme to make sure that children can enjoy that when school is out. We also have the Healthy Start scheme to help 300,000 lower-income households. At this time, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the Church and all those who have a role in helping with food banks, because I know that that area provides a lot of comfort to people.
I turn to the impact of all this on mental health. The point was ably made by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Layard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, among others, that the cost of living crisis causes more stress and anxiety. That is why the £2.3 billion of additional funding per annum that has been put in place to fund mental health services for an extra 2 million people per annum is a key recognition on the part of this Government of the importance of mental health to our general well-being. I believe that all areas have now set up a 24/7 urgent helpline to assist people in this. On a wider scale, the Treasury has set up the Breathing Space programme to assist people and give them breathing space when they need to manage their debts. These are difficult times and I will take this opportunity to urge anyone struggling with their mental health to seek support. Help is out there.
I turn to the pressures on the NHS. Again, many noble Lords’ comments recognised this issue today and, in terms of the broader measures of public well-being, how crucial health is in that—and, therefore, how NHS delivery is crucial to the health and well-being of our country. As a new Minister, I am under no illusions about the cost of living pressures and how they might add to the NHS challenges.
I have spoken previously about our plan for patients. I am confident that our focus on ABCD is the right approach. I will not repeat those points now. At a time of unprecedented investment in the NHS and a larger workforce than ever, my focus is to make sure that, by working with the NHS management team, we really are driving performance as well.
We have all seen examples of NHS brilliance—I had the chance to see some recently at Chase Farm in Watford—but we have all seen examples of poor performance that we know is not good enough. With tight budgets and the cost of living, maximising our return on this investment is more important than ever. That is why a lot of my focus is on making sure that not only are we expanding bed capacity by 7,000, we are expanding capacity in the right places. We must make sure that the beds are being used to most effect to relieve the pressures. Again, this will benefit the whole flow through the system, right back to ambulance and A&E waiting times. At the same time, we must make sure that the 50 million extra GP appointments we are delivering are available to meet demand in the places that need it most.
The noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Pendry, also mentioned the key part that adult social care plays in this whole system. As we all know, how we look after our loved ones is key to our relationships, to how we feel about ourselves and to our decency as a nation. Freeing up 13,000 hospital beds—13%—is key to ensuring that our loved ones are cared for in the right place: in care homes and not hospitals. It is also key to creating capacity in our hospitals to improve the flow right the way through the system, so that we can make sure that ambulance and A&E wait times improve. The £500 million discharge fund is a welcome addition to help solve this problem. Again, my job is very much making sure that we spend it in the right places to ensure that it is making a real difference.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, at the same time we are working to recruit staff. Key to that, in the age of full employment, is looking to overseas workers, in the fine tradition of the NHS. I am glad that they have been added to the essential worker list so that we can have access to these markets. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, we must help people to see acting in the care sector as a vocation, not just a job.
I echo the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Howarth, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Hendy, around the role of work and employment. Work is not only key to our personal finances, it is key to our skills, our health and our own sense of worth and personal well-being. It is also key to a public sense of well-being and of benefit to the economy. In short, work pays. While I am delighted that unemployment is at a record low, as has been mentioned, we need to attract millions of people back into the workplace. Many people in their 50s stopped working during Covid. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said, we need to find ways of attracting them back. As a former lead NED at the Department for Work and Pensions, I know about the work that the new Secretary of State, Chloe Smith, is putting in to help people on disability benefit back into the workplace. That is not only good for them and their income; it is good for their self-worth and vital to the economy. That is why we have put £1.3 billion into supporting disabled people and people with health conditions to help them back into work. It is good for them, good for their income and good for the economy.
In closing, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions from noble Lords and to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for securing this debate.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister respond to my request for a public inquiry into the deaths caused by the Government’s policies? I referred to austerity, Covid deaths, deaths while people have been waiting for NHS appointments and poverty. I am aware that there are people here in the Gallery whose families and friends died. They are suffering anguish and they want an inquiry.
Lord Markham (Con)
No, I am not going to respond to that point at the moment.
The Government recognise how important it is to protect and promote the well-being of the British people, particularly the most vulnerable. The measures I have outlined today will do just that. We are delivering unprecedented levels of support due to the rising costs of living, and this will already be helping millions of people across the country. The increased costs of living are impacting everyone in a variety of ways, particularly the most vulnerable in society. The situation is very fast moving and I hope noble Lords will share my enthusiasm for continuing an open dialogue as the Government closely monitor the impact felt to ensure that the right support is delivered.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have to acknowledge the humour he introduced at the beginning. He is quite right; one of the 10 domains of well-being that the ONS measures is governance—how decisions that affect ordinary people’s lives are made—so he was probably wise to bat that one away. I give him credit for fleetness of foot on that.
Given the instability in the Government, it is very difficult for him to give answers to questions with any confidence, and that clearly shows. It is not a reflection on his ability, but it is clear that at the moment any Minister for this Government cannot answer what are incredible challenges for most of the population. The Minister cannot tell us about the White Paper on inequalities, the Government’s confidence on dealing with the social care crisis or whether they are losing the political will on regional inequalities. Without meaning to be disrespectful, his inability to answer those questions in itself contributes to the evidence that this is a Government who cannot lead.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in today’s debate for making so many excellent contributions. They took different dimensions but brought it all so alive. In our normal daily lives, let alone in the statistics we have read—and I have read a lot over the last two weeks—we see the humanity and the challenges. We see our friends ringing up saying, “Oh my God, my son can’t afford the mortgage interest rate. What am I going to do? Am I going to have to go back to work and help him with the money?”. These are real human stories that people are experiencing. We live in extraordinary times. Our economy is under pressure, the public is frightened and the Government are in chaos, holding the confidence of neither the public nor the markets. I think it is a moment in our history as a country.
Those in our influencing institutions—those in the Bank of England and the Treasury, and our Parliaments and Ministers—must bear heavily the responsibilities that they have to discharge at this time. There really is a huge national interest here, above petty personal issues. For everyone, whether it is civil servants, parliamentarians or Ministers, this is the moment to recognise that they must do what is in the national interest. They must carry it heavily on their shoulders, though it may be a burden—because it should be—and deal with this cost of living crisis.
As my noble friend Lord Layard and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, argued so persuasively, they must benchmark their decisions against the public well-being and show how they did it. For heaven’s sake, that is what the people of this country want to see and know. The confidence will not come back to our democratic institutions until we do that visibly. They need to see and know how we are looking after their national interest. We know that there are going to be more challenges, but I thank everyone who participated in today’s debate.
Ukraine
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave 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, on Ukraine. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
We are now 239 days into the operation that President Putin planned to conclude within a month. Active Ukrainian offensive operations continue in the north-east, near Svatove, and in the Kherson region in the south. If Ukraine successfully advances on Svatove, a key road and rail junction, it will constitute another severe blow to the logistical viability of the northern sector of Russia’s Donbass front.
Yesterday, the new Russian commander in Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin, offered an unusually candid public statement of the difficulty of the Russian position in Kherson, on the right bank of the Dnipro river. Pro-Russian occupation forces have now started to withdraw some categories of civilians east of the river. They claim 7,000 people have already departed, and aim to move another 10,000 a day, though we cannot yet verify those figures. Russia’s limited hold on the west bank of the Dnipro looks shaky. They are likely more seriously considering a draw-down of their forces in the area.
Russia’s ground campaign is being reversed. It is running out of modern long-range missiles and its military hierarchy is floundering. They are struggling to find junior officers to lead the rank and file. Meanwhile, their latest overall commander has a 30-year record of thuggery marked even by the standards of the Russian army. What will worry President Putin is that the open criticism is inching closer and closer to the political leadership of his country. Russia has strong-armed Belarus into facilitating its disastrous war, but the newly announced ‘Russian-Belarusian Group of Forces’, supposedly to be deployed in Belarus, is unlikely to be a credible offensive force. It is far more likely that Russia is attempting to divert Ukrainian forces from their successful counteroffensives.
As Russia’s forces are pushed back, they are resorting to directly striking Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure, especially the power grid. It should be noted that these facilities have no direct military role, but the impact is multiplying the misery of ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Notably, these strikes are partially being conducted by loitering munitions—so called kamikaze drones. Despite Tehran’s denials, these weapons are being provided by Iran, another sign of the strategic degradation of Russia’s military.
In the wake of these ongoing and indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the UK continues to give air defence missiles to Ukraine. We are proud to be the second-largest donor of military equipment, and last week I announced that the UK would be providing additional air defence missiles to Ukraine to defend against Russian missile strikes. These include AMRAAMs—air-to-air missiles—which, used in conjunction with the NASAMS air defence system pledged by the United States, are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. We continue to provide sophisticated electronic warfare equipment which gives additional protection against long-range drones and missiles.
Supporting Ukraine remains the Ministry of Defence’s main effort. We are helping Ukraine to replenish its stocks to keep up fighting. As winter approaches, we are developing a package to support Ukrainians through the winter, including 25,000 sets of winter clothing, so that they are more effective on the battlefield than their poorly trained, badly prepared and ill-equipped Russian counterparts, many of whom have been mobilised at short notice with little training, equipment or preparation.
As part of Operation Interflex, we are also continuing to train Ukrainian recruits in the United Kingdom alongside our Canadian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Lithuanian, New Zealand, Norwegian and Swedish partners. We have so far trained over 7,000 soldiers and are currently on track to train 10,000 by the end of the year, with up to 20,000 to follow in 2023.
Furthermore, we have worked with allies and partners to establish an international fund, which will ensure a continued supply of essential lethal and non-lethal military support to Ukraine, as well as manufacturing capacity. To date, we have received pledges totalling approximately £600 million and continue to work with international partners to secure further funding. Today, we will launch the first urgent bidding round to identify and procure critical capabilities which can be rapidly deployed to Ukraine.
I would also like to share with the House details of a recent incident which occurred in international airspace over the Black Sea. On 29 September, an unarmed RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint civilian ISTAR aircraft on routine patrol over the Black Sea was interacted with by two Russian armed Su-27 fighter aircraft. It is not unusual for aircraft to be shadowed and this day was no different. During that interaction, however, it transpired that one of the Su-27 aircraft released a missile in the vicinity of the RAF Rivet Joint, beyond visual range. The total time of the interaction between the Russian aircraft and the Rivet Joint was approximately 90 minutes.
The patrol was completed and the aircraft returned to its base. In the light of this potentially dangerous engagement, I have communicated my concerns directly to my Russian counterpart, Defence Minister Shoigu, and the Chief of the Defence Staff has also communicated his concerns to Moscow. In my letter, I made it clear that the aircraft was unarmed, in international airspace and following a pre-notified flight path. I felt it was prudent to suspend these patrols until a response was received by the Russian state.
The reply by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 10 October stated that it had conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the incident and that it was a technical malfunction of the Su-27 fighter. It also acknowledged that the incident took place in international airspace. The UK Ministry of Defence has shared this information with allies and, after consultation, I have restarted routine patrols, but this time escorted by fighter aircraft.
Everything that we do is considered and calibrated with regard to ongoing conflict in the region and in accordance with international law. We welcome Russia’s acknowledgment that this was in international airspace. The UK has conducted regular sorties of the RAF Rivet Joint in international airspace over the Black Sea since 2019, and we will continue to do so. For security reasons, I will not provide further commentary on the detail of these operations, but I assure the House that this incident will not prevent the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine and resistance to Russia’s illegal invasion.
The UK Government’s position remains unchanged, with consistent support, I am pleased to say, from across the House. We will continue to support the Ukrainian people to defend their homeland, and the rules-based system. It has protected all nations from such naked and unprovoked aggression over the last 75 years; it was also helped and shaped by Russia in that time. This Government will always defend it because these rules-based systems are fundamental to who we are, and provide peace and security for this country and our partners and allies. I commend this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on Ukraine made earlier today in the other place, and I welcome its contents.
Obviously, there is currently chaos in government, with a new Prime Minister, whoever that is, to be in place soon. Given this political uncertainty, will the Minister take this opportunity to say loudly and clearly that, whatever the outcome of all this political uncertainty, our resolve to support Ukraine will remain as steadfast as it has been and nothing will shake our joint resolve to support Ukraine and NATO in facing up to Russia and its illegal invasion? Will the Minister resolve to ensure that President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine are made aware of that? Indeed, President Putin himself must be in no doubt that, whatever the political uncertainty, there will be no weakening of our resolve.
To that end, talking of our new Prime Minister, what is the government policy on defence spending at present? The former Prime Minister said 3% by 2030, but last night the Chief of the Defence Staff said it was only a potential increase to 3%. Can we please have some clarity on that?
The Statement tells us that as Russian forces are pushed back, they are resorting to directly striking Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure, especially the power grid, with consequent misery for the people of Ukraine. Given that the so-called kamikaze drones being used are supplied by Iran, can the Minister update us on what discussions have taken place between our Government and Iran but also between NATO and Iran about the supply of these weapons to Russia?
The Minister tells us that we are supplying a considerable number of air defence missiles, which is very welcome and we can be rightly proud of it. Are we able to keep up with the demand for these missiles with our US and NATO allies? Can we provide all the lethal and non-lethal equipment that is being requested?
In answer to questions in the other place earlier today, the Minister there spoke about the withdrawal of troops from Estonia. Can the Minister update us a bit more on the Government’s position with respect to troop levels in Estonia?
As a result of the advance of Ukrainian forces and Russian difficulties in Kherson, the Minister has just told us that thousands of people are being moved, with thousands more to follow. Who are these people, how are they chosen and where are they actually being moved to? There are also reports of Russia planning to blow a dam near Kherson and then blaming the Ukrainians. Does the Minister have any comment to make about that?
The Statement talks about candid remarks made by the new Russian commander about the difficulties they are facing. Can the Minister explain the remark, “What will worry Putin is that the open criticism is inching closer to the political leadership too”? That is a direct quote. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what evidence there is for that and what that sentence actually means.
We read of the Defence Secretary’s recent visit to Washington, which was organised so quickly that he had to miss a Select Committee meeting at the last minute, to discuss, according to Secretary Blinken, support for Ukraine and the serious security threat that Russia poses to the Europe, the US and the world. What threats were discussed? What was the purpose of this last-minute meeting?
Worryingly, as the Minister has just told us, it is reported that a Russian fighter jet released a missile near an unarmed British spy plane over the Black Sea. Can the Minister confirm that the Defence Secretary has accepted completely Russian assurances that this was the result of a malfunction? Does it not, however, show how careful we all must be to prevent any possible escalation? Have there been any other similar incidents on land, sea or air?
Yesterday the US imposed new sanctions on Russia, targeting a network accused of procuring military and dual-use technologies from US manufacturers and illegally supplying them to Russia for its war in Ukraine. RUSI has confirmed that UK components are also appearing in Russian weaponry. Can the Minister confirm whether we are looking at the imposition of a similar sanction on Russia?
Lastly, can the Minister tell us anything about the new MoD assessment of the threat to Ukraine from Belarus? Kyiv believes that it is a very real threat.
I reiterate our support for the Government in their actions in respect of Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as so often on these occasions, I rise in many ways to endorse all the questions and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and to echo the support for His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to Ukraine. It is very welcome that the Secretary of State for Defence, reiterated by the Minister, noted the commitment to continue to support the Ukrainian people, which is absolutely right. They are defending their homeland against an illegal invasion, and it is absolutely right that we should continue to support them.
In light of that—in many ways, I might sound a bit like an echo of the Labour Front Bench—what assessment have the Government made of the relationship with Iran? That is a slightly different question, but if the kamikaze drones are coming from Iran, and there is a fairly strong sense that they are, have the Government made any further assessment of how dependent Russia is or might be on Iranian weapons? There is surely a danger of escalation into a wider region. Given that the United Kingdom, along with many of our allies, has supported the reintroduction of the JCPOA, where are we in negotiations with Iran, and is that an area where the Government could hold to account the Government of Iran?
Turning to the question of escalation over the Black Sea, to what extent are His Majesty’s Government satisfied that the incident with the Russian fighter jet was a one-off? Was it just an accident? Is there not a danger of escalation if we now feel that we need to send our unmanned flights with armed support? To what extent is there a danger of unintended consequences as the United Kingdom responds to unintentional attacks—if we are being generous in our analysis of what Russia may or may not have done?
Beyond that, it is very welcome that we are continuing to train Ukrainian soldiers. The numbers we are training sound very positive, and similarly, sending cold-weather kit is highly desirable. What other activities are His Majesty’s Government undertaking to support Ukraine in a non-military sense? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, Russia has been attacking critical infrastructure, particularly energy sources. To what extent is the United Kingdom seeking to support Ukraine to make sure it can keep the lights on? On the diplomatic approach, to what extent is His Majesty’s Government having conversations with China, perhaps in margins of the United Nations and elsewhere? Whatever our difficulties with China might be on some issues, it is perhaps best placed to persuade Putin that further perpetration of this illegal war is not in Russia’s interests, and that deconflicting the situation is possibly best promoted by China. Are the Government discussing this informally, behind the scenes?
Finally, obviously, I have to ask about defence expenditure. Liz Truss committed to 3% by 2030. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Jeremy Hunt version—did not rule that in. Does the Minister believe that there is a firm commitment to 3% of GDP for defence? Will she and the Secretary of State please fight to ensure that we keep our defence expenditure where it needs to be to keep this country secure and to support all our commitments to NATO and other allies?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the tenor of their remarks? It is a great pleasure to stand as a Minister at the Dispatch Box with business as usual. That is where we are at the MoD, that is what we are getting on with, and it would be perilous if we were distracted from that core mission. I want to reassure your Lordships that I have not just a deep friendship with the Secretary of State for Defence, but the most profound respect for him, as I think everyone has. I wish to reassure your Lordships that in the MoD, we consider that we have a vital task. Every Minister there has their head down and is getting on with it.
I will try to deal with some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, sought reassurance about our resolve, and whether we will remain steadfast. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, echoed that sentiment. Let me say, without a shadow of a doubt, “Yes”. We have demonstrated our political and national will to support a country in peril and in need, and the victim of a quite outrageous breach of international law with this illegal incursion. We have demonstrated by deed what we are prepared to do by ourselves and in conjunction with NATO partners and with other allies across the globe, as we assist Ukraine in defending itself against this quite appalling and totally unjustified invasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that President Zelensky should be assured. The MoD has very good and close relationships with Ukraine. I am absolutely certain President Zelensky knows we understand that, while our tumult within the United Kingdom is troubling and distracting, to put things into context, the problems confronting him are of a very different magnitude. None of us should ever forget that, living in democracy which we do. Democracies bring ups and downs, triumph and difficulties, but I know that in this Chamber there are persons of all political hues who have seen that at first hand. Our job is to never take our eye off what we are here to do as public servants and try to do that to the best of our ability. I am sure President Zelensky is aware of that.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of defence spending. I can confirm that the Secretary of State is committed to the objective of 3% of GDP by 2030, and I entirely support that objective. He made it clear in the other place, earlier today, that it is not just a question of 1 January 2030 arriving and us looking for 3% of GDP. For it to make any sense whatever, because of the nature of the defence budget and the magnitude of it, there has to be a phased increase. That is what the Secretary of State will fight for, that is what he believes is necessary, and he is supported by his Ministers in that objective. While it would be for any new Prime Minister to put his or her stamp on that objective, I think there is a universal understanding across government of the essential importance of what the MoD does, and the need to ensure that it is funded as required. Otherwise, it cannot do the job it is tasked to do.
On the issue of the power grid and the disruption by Russia of Ukrainian energy supplies—an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised in the context of humanitarian aid—as your Lordships will be aware, a lot has been happening. The UK is providing support for Ukraine’s early recovery through the multi-donor partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. All of this is extremely important. Through UK export finance, His Majesty’s Government have made £700 million available in financial guarantees to help rebuild homes, bridges and other critical infrastructure destroyed by the war. This facility is part of UKEF’s £3.5 billion capacity to underwrite loans to Ukraine and to support UK businesses exporting to Ukraine with credit and insurance. I hope that indicates to your Lordships that, while the MoD obviously is focused on the delineated area of military support to help Ukraine defend itself, on that wider front a great deal of good work is being down by the UK, and in conjunction with partners. Everyone is cognisant of the need to be sure that there is a sustainable way of helping Ukraine, when this war comes to an end, to rebuild its country.
The issue of diplomatic engagements with Iran was raised. That is for my noble friend Lord Ahmad to respond to, as is it very much a matter for the FCDO. I remind your Lordships that severe sanctions have been applied by both the UK and the United Nations against Iran. We continually review how we can persuade Iran to reconsider what it is doing. I have to say that while Iran may be a problematic country in many respects, historically it is actually one of honourable traditions and pride in its international position. I would have thought it was appalled to see the footage of what these drones were achieving as they were delivered to innocent citizens of Ukraine, and that that might want to make Iran consider just where it is in this.
There was an important question on whether we can keep providing equipment. Yes, and not only have I on previous occasions listed the extensive types of equipment advanced but the Secretary of State, in the Statement I have just repeated, detailed further provisions of equipment, all of which is important to Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised Estonia. I can say that the 2nd Brigade—the battle group—was put in at the start of the Ukraine war, but it was only ever temporary. We made that clear and it is being withdrawn, but the fundamental presence remains. It is important to look at this across the piece, in terms of what we are providing to Estonia and in the surrounding countries. We are expanding our national headquarters in Estonia. There will be the balance of a full combat brigade, allocated at high readiness for rapid deployment across the Baltic region. There is an increase in the warfighting capability of our forces already based in Estonia. We are helping with the development of the Estonian national divisional C2 through training and mentoring, while seeking opportunities to embed Estonian staff officers within the UK divisional HQs. We are regularly in touch with Estonia. The Secretary of State spoke very recently to his counterpart in the country, and Estonia is very positive about what the UK is doing there.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also raised the issue of people being moved by the Russians in the areas referred to in the Statement. I do not have details of where they are going. That is something we shall try to monitor, but it is a serious issue and, clearly, there must be concerns about their welfare and how they are being looked after. He also asked about the phrase used in the Statement of criticism “inching closer” to Mr Putin. By general acknowledgement—recently, the head of GCHQ made a statement in a radio interview about the situation in Russia—the anecdotal evidence we are picking up is that the Russian population is beginning to understand that there is more to Russia’s illegal war than meets the eye. I think many are getting reports back directly from family members; they are finding that distressing and beginning to question what is going on.
On the Secretary of State’s visit to the United States, at this critical time we think it vital that we keep closely and personally in touch with our most important allies, of which the United States is one. I know from speaking to the Secretary of State that the discussions were very constructive and very useful. They were an important opportunity to make sure that everyone understands the backdrop of what is happening in Ukraine. The House will understand that I cannot disclose further information about these discussions.
On the RAF incident above the Black Sea, there is really no more I can add to what I have already said. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked if I was aware of other incidents. I am not, and I think they would have been brought to my attention if they had occurred, but the matter was handled sensibly and wisely by the Secretary of State. The response the Russian Government gave was regarded as professional and, while there is much to condemn about Russia, I have said before that MoD maintain civilised levels of communication with our counterparts in Russia. That is evidence of it but there is no more I can add about the incident.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about China. It is a very important question. We continue to engage with China at all levels in Beijing, London and at the United Nations. We can seek only to influence and make clear to China that we are watching it, as is the rest of the world and whether its actions contribute to peace and stability or fuel aggression. We expect China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and uphold its commitment to the United Nations charter.
I have tried to deal with the points raised and I hope I have managed to address the majority of them. I will, as usual, check Hansard. If I have omitted to deal with something, I shall write.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. May I begin by agreeing with everything said by my noble friend—
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am afraid he was not here for the start of the debate. On this occasion, I have to ask him to hold his question for another time.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, on this of all days it is a very good thing that we are able to express our national unity behind the Government’s stance on Ukraine. I thank the Minister for the very detailed way in which she tried to answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
I have two questions. One relates to the inevitable problem of money and the Treasury. Has the MoD concluded its discussions and negotiations with the Treasury on how the armaments that we have sent to Ukraine will be replaced and on what timescale? Do we know that our defences will not be weakened as a result of what we have done? Is there a commitment on the part of the Treasury—especially given the Statement coming up in 10 days’ time or so—to replace all the kit and armaments that have been sent there? When is that happening?
My second point is not an MoD issue. Is the noble Baroness aware of what steps have been taken across Europe with our European friends and allies, and by us, to assist the Ukrainians practically with keeping their critical infrastructure, particularly their power infrastructure, going throughout the winter? I happen to have been in Ukraine in winter and it is a pretty horrific prospect if they are unable to heat people’s homes. What practical steps have been taken to help them counter the threat from Iranian drones?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to what has been supplied and how we pay when we come to replenish it, the MoD has proceeded on the basis that it will be paid for by the Treasury. That has been a negotiated position and it is one I would expect to be obtempered and to continue.
On Ukraine’s infrastructure, I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, some of what the UK was trying to do. As I observed earlier this week, the EU has shown commendable willingness to group together to support the endeavour, discussing with friends and allies how we best make an impact on supporting Ukraine. I reassure the noble Lord that the UK is working closely with the EU on providing Ukraine with military equipment, cyber resilience and humanitarian and economic support—not least with sanctions, energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation. There is work going on. It is perhaps a broader issue than for the MoD, and I am sure it is one that my noble friend Lord Ahmad would be very pleased to take up with the noble Lord.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
If there are no other Back-Bench speakers, I would like to ask a question on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell, who is absent from the Chamber. I think he perhaps misunderstood the timing of a Statement repeat rather than an Urgent Question repeat. I believe he was going to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to answer a question that both he and I have raised on a couple of occasions recently about the ability of the United Kingdom to continue to supply weapons to Ukraine and about the supply-chain issues. Clearly, it is something on which reassurance would be important.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I find it difficult to see in the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the demeanour of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, but as a proxy she is very capable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is concerned and there is legitimate interest in how we replenish, how we fund and how we keep supplying. I can say that we continually manage and analyse our stock of weapons and munitions, so when the Secretary of State makes an announcement, it has been carefully considered before it is made public. We make these decisions against commitments and threats, because we have our own national security to think of.
We also have to review industrial capacity and supply chains, both domestically and internationally, so that informs not just the numbers of munitions we have granted in kind to the armed forces of Ukraine but the avenues of supply. I can say that industry has been extremely supportive in all of this, and, of course, the noble Baroness will understand that the UK does not work in isolation. We of course have discussions with our partners and allies and then we have discussions with the industry suppliers because it is quite a complicated jigsaw, as the noble Baroness will know. It is a complicated jigsaw because there are a lot of pieces that we keep having to make sure are fitting together. I want to put on record that industry has been very supportive. We work bilaterally with industry, but we also work closely with our international partners, as we are trying to make a coherent presentation and to avoid duplicating what one another is trying to do.