House of Commons
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 5 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
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government food strategy sets out what we will do to create a more prosperous agrifood sector that delivers healthier, more sustainable and more affordable food, including commitments to broadly maintain the level of food we produce domestically and to boost production in sectors with the biggest opportunities. We are also providing support to farmers to improve productivity.
Maggie Throup
With a greater emphasis on food security as a consequence of Putin’s war in Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend agree that her Department’s response to the independent Dimbleby review, only to maintain broadly the current level of domestic food production, lacks ambition? Will she now bring forward a national food strategy that not only commits to increasing food production significantly here in the UK but gives preference to the production of healthy food to tackle the growing threat of obesity, especially in children?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to flag these issues, particularly Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, which is a reminder of the crucial importance of UK food producers to our national resilience. I do not intend to change the Government food strategy, but I am conscious that we need to ensure that food security, as the heart of our vision for the food sector, is delivered. That is why we will continue to maintain the current level of domestic food production, but there are opportunities, such as in horticulture and seafood, where we can do even better.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Some supermarkets are now rationing eggs and, ahead of Christmas, there is a real concern about the supply of turkeys. The British Free Range Egg Producers Association has said that a third of its members have cut back on production as a result of avian influenza. Can the Secretary of State say what the Government are doing to help poultry farmers through this very challenging time?
Dr Coffey
I understand that the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is meeting the industry on a weekly basis. It is fair to say that retailers have not directly contacted the Department to discuss supply chains, although I am conscious of what is happening on individual shelves. Nearly 40 million egg-laying hens are still available, so I am confident we can get through this supply difficulty in the short term.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to visit Old Hall farm in Woodton in my constituency to see the excellent work done by Rebecca and Stuart Mayhew who use regenerative techniques to produce high-quality food that both protects the environment and reduces costs to the NHS through more healthy food?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend offers an interesting invitation. Given my diary, I cannot commit now, but his constituents’ work is exceptionally positive. We introduced the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill because we know we need to adapt some of our food production industries to be resilient for the future.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
We will produce less food if we have fewer farmers. In just a few weeks’ time, the Government plan to take 20% of the basic payment away from farmers, at the same time that barely 2% have got themselves into the new sustainable farming incentive. Will the Secretary of State consider delaying the reduction in the basic payment scheme to keep farmers farming while she sorts out the mess in her Department on the environmental land management schemes? Will she also meet Baroness Rock at the earliest opportunity to discuss her important tenant review?
Dr Coffey
It has been well trailed for several years that we will shift from the EU common agricultural policy for distributing money to our farmers and landowners to using public money for public goods. That is why we have been working on the environmental land management schemes and will continue to make sure we get them right. We will make further announcements in due course.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Food production is vulnerable to animal disease, and we have heard about the impact of avian flu on supermarkets, which are limiting the sale of eggs. This week, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted what it describes as
“a long period of inadequate management and under investment in the Weybridge site”
of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. The PAC warned that the APHA would struggle if there were a concurrent disease outbreak. As the Secretary of State well knows, other diseases do threaten. Although staff are doing their very best, what is her plan if we face another disease outbreak, or is it just fingers crossed in the hope that it does not happen on her watch?
Dr Coffey
I have been at COP27 for the past few days, so I have not read all of the PAC report, but I reject its assertion that our biosecurity is not well done. We should be proud that the United Kingdom is protected against such diseases, and that will continue. That is why the APHA is an important part of what DEFRA does, not only for England but for the UK.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Some of the things that we require to ensure increased food production are good trade deals, and in a rare moment of understated candour, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has conceded that the much-trumpeted flagship Australian trade deal is “not…very good”, something any of us could have told him if he had been prepared to listen. Why does it take the resignation or sacking of former Secretaries of State to get that type of blunt candour? Does the Secretary of State agree that these rotten deals betray and let down all the sectors that she represents?
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank my hon. Friend for his independent report, “Power To The People”, which focuses on competition in the regulated sectors. Through our strategic policy statement, we have instructed Ofwat not only to put the environment at the top of the agenda but to promote competition where that would benefit consumers. This year, we also instructed Ofwat to produce a competition stocktake. It published that in July and we are reviewing it.
John Penrose
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words about my report on competition in all utilities, including the water sector, which was commissioned by the Government but, as she says, is independent. I am pleased to hear that we have now got a statement or a request—a demand, I suppose—that Ofwat introduces more competition. It is essential that we get dates and deadlines on introducing more competition and reducing the regulatory burden. Will she promise me that the Government’s response will aim for those dates and deadlines, so there can be no backsliding in progress towards helping my constituents with their water bills?
Rebecca Pow
By putting competition on the agenda for Ofwat, we have already demonstrated that we mean business on this issue and we will respond to that report. Ofwat has already put an outcomes-based approach in its 2024 price review and it is already enforcing competition for the procurement of infrastructure. That demonstrates that we are going in a direction that I think my hon. Friend may be pleased with.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
South West Water, which covers both my constituency and that of the Minister, has been given a one-star rating by the Environment Agency because of water pollution. It is clear that Ofwat cannot properly regulate some of the wayward companies that continue to pay out huge sums in dividends while failing our communities. Does the Minister agree with me that Ofwat should be abolished so that we can create a new regulator that actually has some teeth?
Rebecca Pow
The answer to that is no. We are working very constructively with Ofwat. It can fine a water company that is found to be in breach 10% of its turnover. It has used fines, and Environment Agency fines have significantly increased over the last year as well. I am certain that working with Ofwat, so that it works with the water companies to bring them into line, is the right way to approach the issue, and that is what Ofwat is doing.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We are investing £5.2 billion over the next six years in flood protection to better protect communities across England. Some 35,000 properties have been better protected since April last year. Last week was Flood Action Week and we encouraged many communities to take note of whether they are in a flood area, as many people do not realise that; they can check that on the Environment Agency website. There are steps that we can all individually take. The EA has also taken on more staff, who are all funded and ready to respond whenever necessary.
Cat Smith
In the last few weeks, with the weather getting wetter, I have been contacted by anxious farmers and residents in the Winmarleigh, Pilling and Hollins Lane areas of my constituency, all of which fall within the catchment of the River Wyre. What steps is the Minister taking to protect my constituents in Wyre against flooding before it happens and devastation is caused?
Rebecca Pow
Our flood funding is funding 2,000 infra- structure projects across the country. There are three already in the hon. Lady’s constituency: two are about to get under way and one we do not yet have the date for, but all the work has been done. One of the key ways that we work with farmers is on nature-based solutions, so that they can take flood water if they have to do so. I am working closely with the Minister responsible for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), on the environment and land management scheme, so that farms are also catered for to deal with water issues as well as food production.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Residents near Sleaford were horrified to find out that Anglian Water plan to flood a large area near Scredington, flooding their homes, their farms and their businesses. Apparently, this is to create a reservoir to provide water in the south-east of England. It is an entirely unsuitable place for such a reservoir: it is a large concrete-bunded, unnatural-looking structure. Will the Minister meet me so that we can ensure that this reservoir does not happen in this location?
Rebecca Pow
We have already had a conversation on that and I am really happy to follow it up. We need water infrastructure in the right place, but we do need new water infrastructure, because we have to increase our water supply. We also need to tackle leakage and water efficiency. DEFRA is working hard on a combination of measures to make sure that people have the water that they need. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that proposal.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I feel a bit like a jack-in-the-box this morning, Mr Speaker.
Environment Agency enforcement is at a record high, and its funding is closely monitored to ensure that it can continue to hold polluters to account. Last year, record fines were handed to water companies, making it clear that polluters will pay. The EA’s total budget this year is £1,650 million. I am always bad at reading out numbers and putting them into words. That is nearly 20% of DEFRA’s entire budget, including new ringfenced money for special enforcement activities, such as 4,000 more farm inspections and 5,000 more sewage treatment works inspections.
Simon Lightwood
I have been dealing with an Environment Agency complaint from residents near a pig farm in rural Wakefield, which has been operating without the necessary licence for more than a year. However, I have seen delay after delay, with residents getting no anticipated timelines and no commitments to resolve the problem, leaving them none the clearer about when life can go back to normal. Can the Minister set out how she will ensure that the Environment Agency’s enforcement actions are fit for purpose so that it can protect our communities?
Rebecca Pow
I have already heard about that particular incident, but I do not have all the details. I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman would like to meet me. It has been conveyed that the farm is operating illegally, that the EA is involved, and that he has already met the EA and will meet it again, but I am very happy to have the details.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I understand that there are pressures with the prioritisation of any kind of enforcement, but in my constituency, in the village Borstal, we have been blighted with an illegal waste dump for a number of years. It is totally illegal, causing distress to residents and a blot on an area of outstanding natural beauty. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can get the Environment Agency to take really swift action for something that has gone on for too long?
Rebecca Pow
One never wants to hear examples such as that. Of course I will meet my hon. Friend to see what more can be done. We need to work constructively with the Environment Agency, because there is a protocol for what it does, and to get it involved with practical actions that can help.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) back to her place.
The Environment Agency has a heavy responsibility for environmental protection, especially investigation and enforcement of pollution incidents such as sewage dumping. However, the Government more than halved the agency’s environmental protection budget from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20, and that included the three years in which the current Secretary of State was a Minister. Last year, the budget was only £94 million. I know that the Minister had some issues with the number, but that number was mainly around capital spending on flooding, and we have seen a fall in the budget for environmental protection, which is hugely important to people around the country, especially those who live near rivers and seas.
Morale is at rock bottom at the agency, and vacancy rates are as high as 80% in some teams, with many breaches not being investigated or enforced. How does the Secretary of State and the Minister plan to resolve crippling staff shortages and get us back to where we should be?
Rebecca Pow
First, I would like to put on record that we must stop doing down our Environment Agency, which does a great deal of really exceptional work, particularly on the areas I have already mentioned such as flooding. Its staff numbers have been consistent for the last three years at around 10,700 and enforcement is funded from the EA’s environment grant, which the 2021 spending review almost doubled to £91 million.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I am still bobbing; I feel as if I am back on the Back Benches.
We are the first Government to tackle storm overflows through the storm overflows reduction plan. We recognise the importance of bathing waters to the economy of coastal areas, with each visit adding approximately £12 to the local economy. Our strict new targets will see £56 billion-worth of capital investment over 25 years and we will eliminate ecological harm from storm sewage discharge by 2050. Our impact assessment on the storm overflows reduction plans provides evidence of the benefits to businesses and society of cleaning up the water.
Bill Esterson
People in coastal communities have seen for themselves the increasing sewage on beaches during 12 years of Conservative Government. Business owners have faced the consequences, with tourists less likely to visit. Will the Minister admit that cutting the Environment Agency budget was a mistake, and perhaps apologise to Environment Agency staff for those cuts and for making it harder for them to do their jobs? While she is apologising, will she also apologise to coastal communities for the damage done and tell us what the plan is to stop sewage discharges on our beaches?
Rebecca Pow
I take issue with that question. Our bathing waters in England are a massive success story, with almost 95% achieving good or excellent status last year, the highest since the stringent new standards were introduced in 2015. I accept that there are issues, and the hon. Gentleman will know how hard we are working—harder than any Government ever before—to tackle storm sewage discharges, hence our reduction plan and all the targets we are setting the water companies. We will do it.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that two or three weeks ago there was a well-publicised spillage at the beach at St Agnes in Cornwall, where a large volume of brown material was expelled into the river. Many campaigners immediately leapt to the assumption that it was a sewage discharge and became very voluble about how disgraceful it was. Had it been sewage, it would have been disgraceful, but it was in fact soil erosion. That is in itself another problem, but we need to urge moderate language when we manage these issues. People should not immediately leap to a conclusion, but allow the Environment Agency and the water company to be clear about what has caused the incident.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that particular issue. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, assuming that it was sewage, and it was proven not to be. That is why monitoring is so important and why this Government have set in place a comprehensive monitoring and data-gathering programme and project. We need that to sort out those issues, as well as all the other measures we have put in place.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I have recently met both the chair of Natural England, Marian Spain, and the chief executive, Tony Juniper. DEFRA frequently discusses regulatory work with Natural England. Its efficiency and effectiveness is appraised in a range of measures, including 19 key performance indicators, which are published in Natural England’s annual report and accounts.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. When she next meets Natural England, will she tell it to stop exploiting the insufficient information loophole, which prevents it from having to respond within 21 days to planning applications as a statutory consultee? Brocks Pine in my constituency is a development that would be on the heathland and inside the green belt. It took Natural England nine months to respond to that, and when it did, it said it had insufficient information. Is that not wholly unsatisfactory?
Trudy Harrison
Clearly, when statutory consultees do not respond promptly, it causes delays and deeper problems for developers and communities. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and esteemed colleague to discuss what went wrong with Brocks Pine, but I would say that Natural England are making significant progress across a number of measures, from countryside stewardship scheme agreements to the coastal path, national nature reserves and many others. There will be creases to iron out, and I will discuss those when I meet him.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Yesterday I met the chair of Natural England, which is doing excellent work. Will the Minister say a bit more about what she sees as Natural England’s role in nature-based solutions to tackle climate change?
Trudy Harrison
Natural England is a vital organisation that I work with closely to ensure that we meet our environmental targets set out in the world-leading Environment Act 2021. Whether it is working with farmers, local communities or environmental organisations, Natural England is at the heart of everything we are doing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government already have existing legal targets driving ambitious action on air and water quality. As the hon. Lady will be aware, bio- diversity was included in the Environment Act 2021, so it is already in primary legislation. When I became Secretary of State, frankly, I was disappointed to discover that we were not in a place to publish these targets, but we are now working at pace, building on the work of my predecessors and the environmental implementation plan.
Marsha De Cordova
My constituents will continue to suffer from breathing toxic air because of the Government’s failure to meet the legal deadline to introduce targets under the Environment Act. The Government are also planning to water down standards by committing to cut PM2.5 only by 2040, not by 2030, the target that the EU has committed to, reneging on yet another pledge not to water down standards post Brexit. Will the Secretary of State provide a new date for the publication of environment targets and commit to a 2030 target?
Dr Coffey
I know that we are in a debating Chamber, but what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her question is factually incorrect. It is important to say that legislation is already in place. We are actually seeing air quality improving right across the country. Indeed, I remind her that in her constituency, it is of course the Mayor of London who should be driving improvements in air quality. He has all the powers at his disposal to do so and it is up to him to deliver.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
May I welcome the Secretary of State to her post? She has been in post for three weeks now, but the crisis of raw sewage turning England into an open sewer can be traced back to her time as an Environment Minister. To undo that damage, will she update the House on when she held a roundtable with all the water bosses and what the outcome of it was?
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that warm welcome. It is great to be back at DEFRA, a Department in which I served for three years—I am pleased to be there. Let us be candid about this: we have seen some difficult situations with water companies. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is already on the case in that regard. I have not yet prioritised the water companies specifically, because other Ministers are doing so and I am prioritising my work to achieve environmental targets to satisfy the legislation set out by Parliament, as well as the preparation we are doing for the Montreal conference. My hon. Friend has already set out to the House some of the work that is under way. We are taking proactive action on sewage spillage.
Jim McMahon
The Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), may only have been in office for just over a month, but even he met the water bosses for a roundtable on his first day in office. Why, for one of the biggest scandals in her Department, has she not seen that as a priority?
Moving on, in a stunning turn of events, ahead of COP27, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will breach their own self-imposed legal obligations to publish targets on air quality, clean water and biodiversity. How does she expect other countries to take us seriously at COP15 when we cannot even get our own house in order?
Dr Coffey
I was at the last COP on the convention on biological diversity, COP14, in Sharm El-Sheikh. I just got home from Sharm, from the climate COP, to come back in time for orals today. I assure the hon. Member that we continue to work with countries around the world to ensure that our outcomes in Montreal are as ambitious as they can be, including signing people up to the 30 by 30 coalition, and indeed the 10-point plan for biodiversity financing. I assure him that we are working at pace in the Department on the Environment Act, and the subsequent targets from it that we need to put into legislation, and I hope to update the House in the near future.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
The Government are providing £32.7 million a year to enable all four fishing Administrations to deliver funding schemes to support the seafood sector, such as the fisheries and seafood scheme in England. In addition to that, £100 million is being provided through the UK’s seafood fund to support the long-term future and sustainability of the industry, helping to bring economic growth to coastal communities and supporting levelling up.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I draw attention to my role chairing Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries, a community interest company promoting the fishing industry in East Anglia. It is welcome that policy labs in the Cabinet Office are engaging with local fishermen in producing the bass fisheries management plan, and a REAF director recently attended a workshop in Lowestoft. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is also liaising with the Department for International Trade to confirm that the management plan accords with the trade and co-operation agreement, and will also apply to EU vessels?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tenacious campaigning on this topic. The bass fisheries management plan will manage bass fishing in England and Wales. We are delivering on our commitments in the Fisheries Act 2020. The fisheries management plan will apply to all vessels fishing in these waters, and the Fisheries Act 2020 requires consultation with all interested persons. Our fisheries management plans will comply with the UK’s international obligations, including the trade and co-operation agreement.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I pay tribute to the previous ministerial team, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), on the work that they did while they were Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have just returned from my fourth climate COP, the UN climate conference in Egypt, where I held productive bilateral meetings with a range of counterparts from India to Japan. Yesterday, I was delighted to announce a new big nature impact fund for our country of £30 million as seed investment to bring in other private investment that will help us to plant more woodland, restore precious peatland and create new habitats, as well as bring green jobs to our communities. We should be proud of what we are achieving, and indeed the work that we are doing to unlock financing around the world, but it is critical that we have a great global effort, so that, as we head into the financial negotiations ahead of the COP15 on the convention on biological diversity in Montreal next month, we come together to ensure that we have ambitions for the future of our planet.
Elliot Colburn
Carshalton and Wallington residents warned the Lib-Dem-run council that the incinerator that it campaigned for in Beddington would one day want to increase its capacity. Sadly, they have been proven right, because it is now seeking to burn more. I know that the waste minimisation strategy calls for the phasing out of incineration, so does my right hon. Friend agree that residents should get involved in the Environment Agency consultation to say that they do not want to see that increase?
Dr Coffey
It will be no surprise to anyone in this House that Liberal Democrats often say one thing to get elected and then do the exact opposite. We should be aware that generating energy from waste should not compete with greater waste prevention, reuse or recycling. Consideration must be given to the Government’s strategic ambition to minimise waste and our soon-to-be-published residual waste reduction target, and I agree that my hon. Friend’s residents should respond to the consultation in full force.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
I am not committing to visiting the hon. Lady’s constituency, but I am very concerned about what she just relayed. I have already asked for the Environment Agency to meet for a deep dive on the flooding budget. There is a frequently flooded fund, which can support constituencies such as hers, and we need to make sure we are delivering effective action. That also goes for councils, which need to make sure they have cleared the gullies, so that we do not get these levels of surface water flooding.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Following consultations on the two schemes my hon. Friend mentions, intensive work is going on in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make all the schemes link up, because these are complicated issues. I can assure him that we are aiming to publish our responses to the outstanding consultations by the end of this year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
It is really important that we make the best use of our land, to have the food security that was referred to earlier. It is also important, when considering land use, that we think about the best place to put renewable energy. By and large, I think most people in this country would agree: let us have good agricultural land for farming, and let us use our brownfield sites for other energy projects too.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Rebecca Pow
I hear that it was a lively debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. We are actively encouraging more applicants for bathing water status, and I look forward to receiving the application for the River Nidd and discussing it with him. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said in that debate, it is time to get your Speedos out.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
There have been many warm words from successive Secretaries of State on saving nature. Many species may soon be extinct, including the red squirrel, the water vole and even the hedgehog. Two years ago, I was on the Environment Bill Committee, and much was made of new targets. The 31 October date for those new targets was missed. Can the Secretary of State be clear today: what is the date for publishing those targets and taking action on saving nature?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I would like to reassure the hon. Member that we remain absolutely committed to publishing our environmental targets, and I have been meeting partners, including farmers, environmental organisations and the people managing protected landscapes. The most important thing is that we deliver on the outcomes clearly set out in our 25-year environment plan.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that planning policy is a matter for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and solar policy is a matter for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but she should be assured that my officials are working closely with those Departments to ensure that we get the right balance between boosting our food production and delivering long-term energy security.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the outstanding statutory deadlines we have spoken about on air, water and so forth will be published before COP15, so that we can lead by example? If she cannot guarantee that, does she agree that that bodes incredibly ill for the deadlines in the utterly misguided and reckless Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? If we cannot meet these deadlines, how will we meet those?
Dr Coffey
I completely understand why Members of the House are concerned that the Government have not come forward with the secondary legislation as set out in primary legislation, and I have already expressed my disappointment. I assure the hon. Lady that we are working at pace to get those targets in place. I am conscious that we are still working on certain aspects of that, but I hope to try to get them done as quickly as possible.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the fisheries Minister for rapidly acceding to the Committee’s request to set up an independent panel to investigate the cause of the mass shellfish mortality off the north-east coast last autumn. When does he expect that panel to be established and when might he expect it to report its findings?
Mark Spencer
Obviously we want to set it up as soon as possible and we want it to assess all the available evidence. All interested parties want to make sure that we identify the challenge. A number of—if I can use the term—red herrings have been thrown into the mix, so establishing the true facts as rapidly as possible will be the ambition of this rapid inquiry.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Some 80% of UK firms say that they are struggling to trade with the EU because of Tory Brexit red tape. Scots exports to the EU have been slashed by 13%. The cost to households in Scotland as a consequence of Brexit averages £900 a year. Additional Brexit checks for meat exports are being imposed on 14 December that will further hammer the agricultural sector. Where is the promised Brexit dividend for farmers? So far, all they can see from the Tories are restrictions and red tape.
Mark Spencer
One day, the hon. Lady will have to accept the result of the referendum and the fact that Brexit took place. We are embracing those opportunities in the Department. We are doing trade deals and promoting British products around the world. We are proud of what our British producers produce. We should get on the front foot and big them up, rather than being negative.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place and, hopefully, will welcome her soon to Newcastle-under-Lyme to see Walleys Quarry for herself. As she knows, that major issue has been blighting the community for some time. Although the odour is getting better, we still have no accountability. There are two investigations going on—criminal and regulatory. Does she agree that it is imperative for the Environment Agency to bring those investigations to a conclusion as soon as possible so that my constituents can have justice and accountability?
Rebecca Pow
As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation, but I can confirm that the EA is continuing to work closely to regulate the operator and to consider appropriate action in compliance with the enforcement and sanctions policy. That includes ensuring that the operator continues to implement all the 20 or more measures that were recommended, which, I think he will agree, are starting to have a real effect.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The commission will publish guidance for electoral administrators on the implementation of the voter ID requirements in phases over the next three months. It was unable to publish detailed guidance before the introduction of secondary legislation, which has been subject to significant delays but is now before the House. It published initial guidance on planning for the implementation of the Elections Act 2022 in August; further detailed guidance will follow on voter ID, which will cover the application process for the free voter authority certificate and polling station processes. It will publish a handbook for polling station staff in early 2023.
Owen Thompson
Although it is encouraging that the legislation has finally been produced, the delays were clearly lengthy, which has had an impact. We all want to see the smooth running of any elections, so I ask the representative of the Speaker’s Committee what consideration it has given to the impact of the delays in the legislation and the effect that will have on administrators of elections and voters themselves.
Cat Smith
The commission has highlighted that delays to secondary legislation leave limited time for electoral administrators to implement new voter ID processes and for voters to ensure that they have acceptable forms of ID. Delays increase the risk of ineffective or inconsistent implementation, which could affect public confidence in elections. The commission will run an advertising campaign and work with local authorities and partners to ensure that voters are aware of the ID requirement and what they need be able to do to vote, but it reports that delays to the legislation have had an impact on its work.
Vicky Foxcroft
In response to voter ID pilots in 2018 and 2019, the Electoral Commission found that some groups might find it harder than others to provide photo ID, such as the millions of people living with a disability. Has the committee carried out an equality impact assessment of the voter ID regulations to ensure that these groups are not being excluded?
Cat Smith
The commission’s research has identified groups, including some disabled voters, who are less likely to have an approved form of voter ID or may need additional support to navigate the voter ID requirement. It is working with the electoral community and partners, including the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mencap and Disability Rights UK, to reach disabled voters to ensure that they understand what they need to do to be able to vote. Understanding the impact of policies on different parts of society is essential. It is, however, for the Government to assess the impact of their own policies. The commission understands that the Government have carried out an equality impact assessment on the voter ID provisions.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Parish ministry is at the heart of the mission of the Church. The Church Commissioners will distribute £1.2 billion between 2023 and 2025 to support our mission and ministry—a 30% increase on the current three-year period—and the lion’s share of this funding will be used to revitalise parish ministry.
Jerome Mayhew
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the relationship between a parish priest and his or her congregation is the single most important element of outreach and service for the Church, and as such, its support should be the primary objective of Church funds?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Church Commissioners continue to fund increasing numbers of ordinands. In 2020, 570 new priests were ordained and there were 580 in training, with only 320 retirements. Innovative ways of attracting clergy from many backgrounds include the fantastic work of both the Peter and the Caleb streams, which I would commend to his parishes.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Church Times is full of adverts for well-paid jobs at diocesan headquarters, yet clergy are spread ever more thinly across the parishes. It is the wrong priority, is it not?
Andrew Selous
I can tell my right hon. Friend, who I know takes a close interest in these matters, that by far the largest share of diocesan expenditure goes on parish clergy, and many diocesan secretaries are reducing central costs to support parish ministry. We should remember that hard-working diocesan staff support parishes, church schools and chaplaincies on vital issues such as safeguarding, vocations, ministry training, youth work and social action, none of which I am sure my right hon. Friend would argue with.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
I have heard from dozens of voters in Blackburn who will be relying on free voter ID certificates, yet the Government have failed to specify the security features to be included. Can I ask the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission—
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately, this is about the Church Commissioners, not voting.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for his reply. Rural communities have been greatly disadvantaged by covid, with Zoom meetings as a method of contact, and attendance at churches has started to lessen as well, so there has to be a new method of reaching out in parish ministry. The hon. Gentleman referred to extra moneys for this process. Within that process, is there more help for those who need cars for travelling out to meet people face to face? That is perhaps how the future of parish ministry will be.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I really appreciate his interest in these matters. As I have said, the Church Commissioners are increasing the funding to the frontline by 30% over the next three years —£1.2 billion—and it needs to go on exactly the type of initiative that he suggests.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Andrew Selous
A service of holy communion will be at the heart of the coronation. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl Marshal and the coronation committee are planning the service, which will be a moment of great national rejoicing and deep spiritual significance.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am glad my hon. Friend has emphasised that point. By immemorial custom, the coronation is a deeply religious and spiritual event. Will he convince us that the Church of England will use its influence to ensure that it remains as such, particularly the anointing, and does not degenerate into a kind of dumbed down, wokefest celebration of so-called modern Britain?
Andrew Selous
I can reassure my right hon. Friend. The anointing of the monarch goes back to biblical times, recognising the outpouring of God’s grace on us all, and the sovereign’s covenant to give his life in service to his people and his God. That is the foundational principle underlying our constitutional settlement.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Rural clergy play a crucial role at the heart of their communities, for which I know my hon. Friend is, like me, deeply grateful. I regularly raise this issue with the Church. In his diocese of Salisbury more than £1.25 million has been invested to support rural ministry in the Renewing Hope Through Rural Ministry and Mission project.
Chris Loder
Let me say to my hon. Friend that we have a couple of vacancies in my benefice, and I hope he will feed back on that point. I would be particularly interested to understand what proportion of stipendiary clergy goes to long-established small and rural parishes, versus what proportion goes to more resourced churches, fresh expressions, and other new or novel forms of church.
Andrew Selous
I can tell my hon. Friend that 24% of the population live in rural parishes, and are supported by 38% of total stipendiary clergy. The figures he asks for are not held centrally as they are decided at diocesan level. I commend to him the Caleb stream, which often enables self-supporting clergy to serve in rural parishes, and of which many bishops are supportive.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I spoke recently to a priest who serves a number of rural parishes in my constituency. He pointed out that church councils are being asked for their views on the vision for the future of the Church, and they feel that they do not have sufficient resources to do that. If they look for guidance from the centre, they fear that church closures will be the outcome. Will my hon. Friend give additional support to parishes to plan for their future?
Andrew Selous
The Church Commissioners are providing a 30% increase in funding over the next three years. It is important to remember that they provide under 20% of the total funding of the Church, most of which comes from parish giving. In a sense, therefore, it is up to all of us to support our local churches and worshipping communities.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The commission’s view is that the digital imprints requirement in the Elections Act 2022 will increase transparency by helping voters to understand who is paying to target them online. It could provide further transparency if the requirement was extended to cover all digital material from unregistered campaigners, regardless of whether they paid to promote it. The commission has said that other changes in the Act relating to non-party campaigners will bring limited additional transparency while increasing the complexity of the law. As currently drafted, the Online Safety Bill would introduce new freedom of speech protections for some campaigning content, but it does not include any provisions that would directly affect the transparency of political campaign activities.
Deidre Brock
Today, openDemocracy and Who Funds You? released an audit showing that the least transparently funded think-tanks raised more than £14 million in the past two years from mystery donors. Those think-tanks appear across the media, such as on the BBC. They have secured hundreds of meetings with Ministers since 2012, and advised the likes of the former Prime Minister on policy choices that were subsequently proven disastrous. What steps is the committee taking to ensure that the funding of such think-tanks is transparent and accountable, and that foreign funding bodies are not able to commandeer our politics?
Cat Smith
The commission regulates the spending of organisations campaigning for or against a political party or candidate during the regulated period ahead of an election, or for a particular outcome ahead of a referendum. It also regulates donations to political parties and candidates. Unless an organisation is engaged in regulated campaigning activity, it will fall outside the commission’s area of responsibility. The commission does not have a role in regulating the spending of political activity more generally.
As for foreign money, the commission is committed to ensuring that political funding is transparent and to preventing unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics. It continues to recommend changes to the law to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK. That includes duties on parties for enhanced due diligence and risk assessments of donations and a requirement for companies to have made enough money in the UK to fund any donations.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
What concern does the Electoral Commission have about the ability of local councils to administer free voter ID on a short turnaround? Can we be confident that that will deliver clear improvements to the security of polls?
Cat Smith
There is a long-standing understanding between Government and the electoral administrators that legislation on elections should be clear at least six months before it must be implemented. That will also apply to the introduction of voter ID. The Association of Electoral Administrators has said that the timetable for implementation presents significant challenges.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
The majority of National Audit Office reports are considered by the Public Accounts Committee. Earlier this month, the Committee took evidence on the NAO’s recent report “Introducing Integrated Care Systems” and will report on that in due course. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, today, the National Audit Office has published a report on “Managing NHS backlogs and waiting times in England”. The PAC expects to take evidence on that on 28 November.
Mr Hollobone
In 2019-20, the NHS England budget was £124 billion, which has increased this year by 23% to £152 billion. Yet, despite that record extra funding, so far this year the NHS has treated 656,000 fewer patients than during the same period in pre-pandemic 2019—a drop of 5%. Is it the National Audit Office’s view that the NHS has a productivity problem?
Mr Bacon
Yes, it is. Indeed, the report published by the NAO today states:
“The NHS now has a problem with reduced productivity.”
NHS England has estimated that, in 2021, the NHS was about 16% less productive than before the pandemic. Some of that, of course, relates directly to the pandemic, but NHS England is also examining other potential causes, including reduced willingness to work overtime. Some of NHS England’s new initiatives such as surgical hubs and the transformation of out-patient services are intended to produce greater productivity. No doubt the National Audit Office will want to examine that in due course.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The UK Government intend that the voter ID requirement for UK parliamentary general elections will come into force from 5 October 2023. Delays to secondary legislation have impacted implementation planning. However, the commission is working to provide support as quickly as possible, including guidance for electoral administrators in England, Scotland and Wales. It will conduct a public awareness activity in advance of any general election to ensure that voters understand what they need to be able to do in order to take part.
Kirsten Oswald
Scotland did not vote for the voter ID plan, but it has been forced upon us by this out-of-touch Westminster Government. Where general elections fall on the same day as local elections, will voters be required to show ID for some elections but not others? That is in addition to the already significant concerns about disenfranchising so many people. The UK Government do not listen to those concerns. Is that not just another situation where the best thing to do would be to ensure that nobody needs to be falling foul of this chaos and for Scotland to move forward as an independent country?
Cat Smith
The hon. Lady is correct to say that, in the event of a UK general election falling on the same day as, for example, local elections in Scotland, a voter would need to show ID for the general election but not for an election to the Scottish Parliament or for a local government election. Voter ID is not being introduced for any devolved elections in Scotland or in Wales. The commission has highlighted the challenges of different rules being put in place for different elections.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church Commissioners have provided £15 million to help churches with their energy costs, so that they continue to act as places to worship Jesus but also stay open at other times, if they are able to, to provide practical community support, such as being a warm hub.
Danny Kruger
I thank the Government for ensuring that churches are included in the package of support that businesses receive to pay their energy bills. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the churches across Wiltshire that have opened their spaces to people in the daytime, providing their traditional role as a place for fellowship, community and support? Does he agree that the churches that have found it easier to fulfil this traditional role are those that have ripped out the Victorian pews, which are such an obstacle to the traditional role of fellowship?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for exactly this type of voluntary community action. The Church of England will always be at the centre of such endeavours, which can be facilitated by churches that make possible the type of activity he mentions. I am not yet aware of any warm hubs in Devizes, although I have noticed some in neighbouring towns. I am sure my hon. Friend will be encouraging his local churches to facilitate such schemes in his area.
G20
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement on the G20 summit in Indonesia, but first I want to address Russia’s missile attacks on Ukraine this week.
On the very day that I and others confronted the Russian Foreign Minister across the G20 summit table with the brutality of his country’s actions, and on the very day that President Zelensky addressed the G20 with a plan to stop the war, Russia launched over 80 separate missile strikes on Ukraine. The targets were innocent people and civilian infrastructure; the aim, to cast the population into darkness and cold. Once again, Russia has shown its barbarity and given the lie to any claim that it is interested in peace.
During the bombardment of Ukraine on Tuesday, an explosion took place in eastern Poland. The investigation into this incident is ongoing and it has our full support. As we have heard the Polish and American Presidents say, it is possible that the explosion was caused by a Ukrainian munition which was deployed in self-defence. Whether or not this proves to be the case, no blame can be placed on a country trying to defend itself against such a barrage. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The blame belongs solely to Russia.
I spoke to President Duda yesterday to express my sympathy and pledge our solidarity. I also spoke to President Zelensky on a joint call with Prime Minister Trudeau to express our continued support, and I met my G7 and NATO counterparts at the sidelines of the G20. We will help our Polish allies to conclude their investigation and we will continue to stand with Ukraine in the face of Russia’s criminal aggression.
The Bali summit took place amidst the worst economic crisis since 2008. The G20 was created to grip challenges like this, but today’s crisis is different, because it is being driven by a G20 member. By turning off the gas taps and choking off the Ukrainian grain supply, Russia has severely disrupted global food and energy markets. The economic shockwaves will ripple around the world for years to come. So, together with the other responsible members of the G20, we are delivering a decisive response.
Almost all G20 members joined me in calling out Russia’s actions, declaring that
“today’s era must not be one of war.”
We will work together to uphold international law and the United Nations charter, and we will act to protect our collective economic security. The G20 agreed to use all available tools to support the global economy and ensure financial stability. That means international financial institutions mobilising more resources to support developing countries, it means continuing to call out those who exploit their lending power to create debt traps for emerging economies, and it means tackling the causes of rising inflation head on, including by delivering fiscal sustainability.
We pledged our support for the UN-brokered deal to keep grain shipments moving in the Black sea. I am pleased to say that that deal has now been renewed. Two thirds of Ukraine’s wheat goes to developing countries. With famine looming, it is desperately needed and Russia must uphold its part of the deal.
We agreed action to improve energy security by accelerating the transition to clean energy. We launched a new just energy transition partnership with Indonesia, which will unlock billions in private finance for new green energy infrastructure. Finally, we committed to maintain free markets and free trade and to reform the World Trade Organisation.
Yesterday, I held my first meeting with President Biden. We pledged to redouble our support for Ukraine and to continue deepening our co-operation, including on energy security and managing the challenges posed by China. I met Prime Minister Modi, when we reviewed progress on our forthcoming free trade agreement. I discussed our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership with the Prime Ministers of Japan, Canada and Australia, and I met almost every other leader at the summit, with the exception of Russia.
In each of those discussions, there was a shared determination to restore stability, deliver long-term growth and drive a better future—one where no single country has the power to hold us back. In just a few moments, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will build on those international foundations when he sets out the autumn statement, putting our economy back on to a positive trajectory and restoring our fiscal sustainability.
By being strong abroad, we strengthen our resilience at home. We will continue to support Ukraine, we will continue to stand up for the rule of law and the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and we will build a global economy that is more secure, more stable and more resilient, because that is what the gravity of the moment demands and that is how we will ensure that our country emerges from this crisis stronger than it was before. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement.
What should have been a summit focused on global economic recovery and delivering clear commitments on climate change was sadly overshadowed by the unjustifiable actions of Russia and its illegal war in Ukraine. Civilian infrastructure was targeted across Ukraine and a war of aggression rumbled on as world leaders tried to reach agreement.
Whatever the outcome of the investigation into the missile incident in Poland, it is a stark reminder of the danger that Russia’s unjustifiable war has brought to the border of our NATO allies. We must remain vigilant and united in our opposition to this pointless and brutal conflict. As I have said many times from this Dispatch Box and to the Prime Minister personally, whatever other differences we may have across the House—and there are many—when it comes to the defence of Ukraine, we stand as one.
On behalf of Members across the House, I send our condolences to those killed in Poland. Poland’s measured reaction to the incident and the calm heads that have prevailed over the past two days are welcome. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said about that and I agree with him that no country can be blamed for defending itself. We need to get to the bottom of this. Obviously, the investigation is ongoing, but when does the Prime Minister expect those investigations to be finalised?
Russia is losing this war, so I welcome the G20’s communiqué, which set out:
“Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine”.
Has further support for Ukraine been discussed among western allies? What efforts are taking place to open a diplomatic road map to rid Ukraine of Russian troops and bring an end to the conflict?
It is crucial that we work to find international unity to further isolate Putin. That will include working with China. We do not underestimate the challenges that China poses to global security and we must defend the human rights of the Uyghur and democracy in Hong Kong, but our approach must be measured, and it is in our interest to work with China on the climate crisis, trade and, most importantly, isolating Putin. I was glad to see constructive dialogue on those issues between President Biden and President Xi. Does the Prime Minister believe that the summit marks a change in west and China relations, and are his Government now taking a different approach from his predecessor to British-China relations?
After a decade of low growth in this country, it is crucial that we open new trade opportunities. The Prime Minister said that he had met Prime Minister Modi, when a future UK-India trade deal was discussed. That deal has previously been put in doubt by his Home Secretary, who indicated that she would not support it. Labour does support a trade deal with India, which we believe can bring new opportunities to promote and create new jobs here in Britain. Will the Prime Minister tell us when he now expects the deal to be completed, and whether measures on visas will be included in the overall deal? If so, can he guarantee that his whole Cabinet will actually support it? Will he also tell us whether in his meeting with President Biden, the UK-US trade deal was discussed—or can we assume that this deal now has no prospect of being delivered any time soon?
Lastly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Northern Ireland protocol was raised by either US or EU colleagues? Failure to make progress is hurting British research, development and trade, all at a time when we need to remove barriers for British business. Fixing this issue could lead to a better relationship with our biggest trading partners, an opportunity for our scientists and exporters, and an end to the past two years of unnecessary fights and division; so when is the Prime Minister going to deliver?
Our international alliances have never been so crucial, for global stability and our own stability. We on the Opposition side of the House know that standing up to Russia's aggression will require further sacrifices, but we must make those sacrifices because taking no action is not an option. The message from all of us must be clear: Ukraine will win and Putin will lose. Democracy and liberty will defeat imperialism again.
The Prime Minister
Let me start by thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his words about the situation in Ukraine and Russia, and for his condemnation of the Russian aggression and steadfast support for the position of the Government and, indeed, the whole House on Ukraine.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to ask about the further support that we will be providing. He will know that we have provided £1.5 billion in economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine, alongside, obviously, the military assistance. We are hosting a reconstruction conference in the UK next year, and there is an ongoing dialogue about what further support the Ukrainian Government need from us and others. In the short term, we are in the process of providing 25,000 pieces of winter equipment for the brave Ukrainian soldiers, but also funds to help restore some of the damage done to Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which I know have been warmly welcomed by President Zelensky.
Let me briefly turn to some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s other questions. On China, I very much supported President Biden in his meeting with President Xi. President Biden and I discussed that meeting at length. I believe that our approach is entirely aligned with that of the United States, and indeed our other allies such as Canada and Australia. Of course China poses significant challenges to our values, our interests and indeed our economic security. It is right that we take the necessary steps to defend ourselves against those challenges, but it is also right to engage in dialogue when that can make a difference in solving some of the pressing global challenges that we all collectively face.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland. I have discussed this issue with my European counterparts and, indeed, with the President at various meetings, not just at the G20. I remain committed to finding a solution to the challenges posed by the protocol. It is clearly having an impact on families and businesses on the ground in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a functioning Executive, particularly at a time like this, and that is something that I will devote my energies to bringing about. So far I have had very constructive relationships and discussions about this issue with both the President and our European counterparts, including the Taoiseach last week.
On trade, the broad, overarching comment I would make to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that when it comes to trade deals, whoever they may be with, what I will not do is sacrifice quality for speed. I think it is important that we take the time to get trade deals right. Of course this Government believe wholeheartedly in the power and the benefits of free trade, which is something that we will champion around the world.
I discussed the free trade agreement with India, and both the Prime Minister of India and I committed our teams to working as quickly as possible to see if we can bring a successful conclusion to the negotiations.
The priorities of the US are in a lot of different areas, but with regard to trade—the President and I discussed this—we are deepening our economic relationship. The United States is already our single largest trading partner. We are doing more with individual states to broaden our trade relationships, and we have seen recent action on tariffs with regard to steel, aluminium and agricultural exports. All of that is good for the UK economy.
Of course, we are in the process of some exciting conversations about joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is real evidence of our country’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, and is supported by the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia and Japan. I hope that we can bring those negotiations to a conclusion in the near future.
Lastly, my reflections on the summit and on attending COP are that the United Kingdom is at its best when we are an engaged and active member of the global community —when we are standing up for our values, defending our interests, spreading prosperity, and alleviating poverty and suffering. I am pleased to have had conversations with so many leaders over the past couple of days that confirmed to me that they very much welcome the UK’s support in achieving all those objectives, and that is what this Government will set about doing.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Dialogue is never weakness, so will my right hon. Friend tell us when he intends to reschedule his meeting with Xi Jinping? It is not an endorsement of the Chinese Communist party, but an opportunity to set out our red lines, particularly on the hostile actions we have seen on UK soil in the last month. We need shortly to see a strategy from the Prime Minister on China.
Will the Prime Minister also inform the House what progress on isolating Russia was made at the G20 with India and other nations that are not as aligned with us on Ukraine, because they are key to global stability and ending bloodshed?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for her excellent question. She is absolutely right about the importance of dialogue, and she will have heard what I said to the Leader of the Opposition about dialogue. We are in the process of refreshing our integrated review, and no doubt our approach to China will be a part of that. In the meantime, she is right that dialogue also offers the opportunity for us to raise issues of concern, and to defend our values and interests—particularly with regard to areas such as Hong Kong—which we will continue to do as the opportunity arises.
My hon. Friend is right to point out the position of those non-aligned countries. We should all take enormous comfort from the fact that the G20 communiqué was agreed; it was substantive, comprehensive and contained strong language of condemnation about Russia’s aggression. That was by no means assured just a week or so ago, and it speaks to the feeling in the international community —something I saw across the G20 table as many, if not almost all, countries took the opportunity to say something about Russia’s actions, and joined us in condemning it. There is always work to do and we will continue to have that dialogue with those partners.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
With the Russian military continuing to fire deadly missiles at civilians right across Ukraine, I sincerely hope that Putin’s Foreign Minister was made to feel the justified anger and disgust by those attending the G20. With that in mind, may I ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made at the summits to further isolate Putin’s regime on the international stage? The whole world must stand together on Russian sanctions, and we must make sure that those responsible for crimes against humanity face justice. What progress has been made to ensure that there is no weakening in the international resolve to stand with Ukraine until it secures victory for its people?
Let me turn to the G20 discussions on the economy. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor keep referring to the global factors to blame for the financial crisis facing families across these islands—it is the excuse they are using to impose austerity 2.0 in today’s financial statement—but if this is really all to do with global factors, will the Prime Minister explain why the UK is the only G7 economy that is smaller today than it was before the pandemic? Why is the UK the only G7 country enacting austerity 2.0? The reality is that this is a political choice.
Finally, on the proposed Indo-Pacific trade deal—the latest Brexit fire sale that threatens to sell out our farmers and crofters—the evidence continues to mount that the Brexit effect is reducing our economy by 4%, a factor that is driving Tory austerity. This week, we heard from the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who retrospectively ripped apart the trade deal with Australia and the damaging impact that it will have on our agrifood sector. I remind Government Members that that deal was endorsed by every single Conservative MP. Can the Prime Minister explain to Scotland’s food and farming industries why he is so committed to pursuing yet another Brexit deal that will deliver a hammer blow to their businesses?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Russia and Ukraine, and I thank him for them. He should be reassured that in Putin’s absence the Russian Foreign Minister felt the full assault, from allies including the United Kingdom, of the absolute outrage that the international community feels about what is happening. That will continue when Russia attends these fora.
The Government are an absolute champion of British farming and farmers. That will remain the case. We will continue to find opportunities to put great British produce on the tables of many more families around the world.
I will just briefly address the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the economy. He had a few different stats, but it is worth bearing in mind that we have just come from a G20 summit at which two thirds of the G20 members sitting around the table are experiencing inflation rates north of 7%. The International Monetary Fund predicts that a third of the world’s economy is already or will shortly be in recession.
If the right hon. Gentleman takes the time to read the G20 communiqué, he will see that actually the global picture is very clear: countries around the world are grappling with high energy prices, high food prices and rising interest rates. Indeed, many countries around the world, like us, have committed, as does the international community, to ensuring fiscal sustainability as a path to improving those matters. That is absolutely the challenge that we confront, and it is absolutely the challenge that the Chancellor will meet head on. We will make those decisions with fairness and with compassion.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s words at the G20 in condemnation of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. I have just returned with the Defence Committee from Odesa, where there is huge appreciation for British efforts in support of Ukraine at this time, but just one fifth as many grain ships have been able to get out since the war.
With Russia’s maritime force severely diminished, Odesa is calling out for a new, more efficient grain deal. Will the Prime Minister meet me to look at securing a UN General Assembly resolution, bypassing the Security Council, to grant Odesa humanitarian safe haven status, along with the formation of a UN-led maritime force so that vital grain ships can be escorted safely out of Odesa?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the grain shipments through Odesa. I am very pleased that, after concerted efforts on our part and from other allies with the United Nations Secretary-General, the grain deal, which just days ago was in some doubt, has indeed been extended. That demonstrates the pressure put on Russia by the international community. My right hon. Friend knows the importance of the free flow of food and fertilisers to the developing world through those ships. I would be delighted to meet him to see what more we can do, but I think for now we should be very pleased that the grain deal is being extended. It is already leading to a decline in wheat prices, which will bring some alleviation to the food inflation that we are seeing, particularly in the African continent.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Putin’s aggression was allowed to prosper for too long—ever since 2008, one could argue—so I completely support what the Prime Minister has said and done in support of Ukraine against the barbarism of the Russian Federation. On China, I understand the realpolitik of the past week, but the concentration camps in the Xinjiang province continue, as does the genocide, and the suppression of human rights in Hong Kong continues. May I ask the Prime Minister to do one thing, which the United States of America has already done: sanction Carrie Lam?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that the United Kingdom has led efforts to hold China to account, including by imposing sanctions on senior Chinese officials and mobilising international support to hold China to account at the United Nations. As hon. Members have heard, we will use dialogue as an opportunity to raise the concerns that we have on Xinjiang and other human rights abuses as we see them.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for this country’s leadership across a range of issues, including on Russia. Does he share my enthusiasm and optimism for our accession to the CPTPP, given this trading bloc represents nearly 15% of the world’s GDP and offers so many opportunities for so many export industries, including the Scotch industry, for which tariffs will fall from 100%, in many cases, to zero? I am sure that is something to which even the SNP could raise a glass when we join.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts it very well. He is right about the importance of CPTPP, not only for its very significant economic benefits but for the strategic benefits to the United Kingdom of being an engaged member of the Indo-Pacific community. I discussed this with the Prime Ministers of Australia, Japan and Canada, and there is incredible excitement about our joining. We will continue to conclude those negotiations as quickly as possible.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that the last G20 summit agreed to on-lend $100 billion of IMF special drawing rights to help tackle the crisis of food fragility and climate finance in the global south. To date, we have agreed to share much less of our entitlement than both France and China. The crisis is now. Will the Prime Minister look again at how we can increase our on-lending to this multilateral effort, not least to make good the appalling decision to slash our aid budget?
The Prime Minister
As Chancellor, I was pleased to usher through the special drawing rights allocation at the IMF, which is providing enormous relief to countries around the world. I met the IMF’s managing director to discuss how we can do more, but remember that the SDR allocation is just one part of our effort to support people around the world. I was recently pleased to announce our £1 billion commitment to the Global Fund, which was warmly welcomed, especially by countries in Africa.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on such successful talks with so many world leaders, particularly President Modi. Will he update the House on the matters he discussed with President Modi other than trade, such as granting visas for highly skilled people to fill job needs in this country, the environment and, above all, the issue raised by the Foreign Affairs Committee: India’s stance, as the world’s biggest democracy, on supporting Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our relationship and partnership with India is much broader than just a trading relationship. I was pleased to discuss increasing our security co-operation with India. That work began before my tenure, but I am keen to carry it on. We also announced the mobility scheme to enable young people from India to come here and young Brits to go there, which is a sign of what is possible. Such exchanges are positive both for our countries and for the young people who benefit.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
At the G20, the Prime Minister agreed with his Indian counterpart to allow an additional 3,000 Indians into the UK every year, which in the fullness of time will inevitably lead to an increase in immigration. At the same time, the Home Secretary has been busy spouting anti-immigrant and anti-refugee dog-whistle rhetoric, including her incendiary remarks against international students that so incensed people in India. Who exactly is in charge of immigration policy? Is it the Prime Minister or the wannabe Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman’s comments, because I know he does not believe that. He can take comfort from the announcement, which is good for both Indian students and British students who want to go back and forth—that is a good thing.
The Home Secretary is rightly focused—there is nothing “dog whistle” about it—on clamping down on illegal migration, which the British people rightly expect and demand, and it is something that she and this Government will deliver.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition correctly said that Russia is losing this war. Like a wounded animal, it is now lashing out with weapons from, we believe, Iran and North Korea. Was any consideration given to additional sanctions on those two countries and possibly excluding Russia from membership of the G20?
The Prime Minister
The G20 is not like the G7. It is a broader grouping of countries that works by consensus, so it is not possible to expel Russia in the same way, but my hon. Friend will take comfort from our using the opportunity to unequivocally condemn Russia’s actions. With regard to sanctions on Iran and others, he will be aware that we have recently imposed new sanctions on Iran that relate specifically to the treatment of protesters in the recent demonstrations. That is the right thing to do as the behaviour of the Iranian regime is not acceptable and we should hold it to account.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Facing the worst drought in 40 years, tens of millions of people in east Africa are going hungry. Children are dying today of malnutrition and the United Nations expects a famine to be declared before the end of the year. Although the UK has already given humanitarian aid, does the Prime Minister recognise that the international community now needs to do more to save lives, not wait for the formal declaration of famine?
The Prime Minister
The UK is already tackling this issue head on. At the United Nations General Assembly, we announced funding, in particular for famine support in Somalia, and our work on helping to secure an extension to the Black sea grain initiative will make an enormous difference to the people that the right hon. Gentleman rightly cares about, as do I. In addition, countries in Africa were very pleased by our commitment to the Global Fund, because they know that will help to alleviate some of the difficulties they face.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Multinationalism has never been more important given current global pressures and threats, not least in protecting the people of Ukraine. Despite Twitter mainly having a meltdown over flowery shirts, will my right hon. Friend tell us how useful he found his first G20 meeting for relationship building and consolidating joint international working?
The Prime Minister
Of course these summits are helpful in co-ordinating global action on tackling challenges such as inflation or supporting Ukraine, but they are also helpful in building those relationships with foreign leaders that can deliver tangible benefit for people here at home. We have seen that most recently with the dialogue we are now having with President Macron and the French that has led to a new deal to help us tackle illegal migration. That is an example of why these dialogues and summits matter, and they are delivering real change for people here at home.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Further to his replies about our relationship with India, why are Britons, alone in Europe, currently excluded from the Indian e-visa scheme? That is doing more damage to our hard-pressed travel and tourism sector, as well as creating extreme inconvenience for British families who want to visit relatives in India in the months to come. Did his discussions with Prime Minister Modi give him hope that that ban might be lifted any time soon?
The Prime Minister
That is something that we discussed and raised. Of course I would like to see the United Kingdom included in the e-visa scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will continue to raise it with our Indian counterparts.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in his conversations with President Biden of the US and his counterparts in the EU, he has made the UK’s intention to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday agreement absolutely clear? Will he also confirm that, in so doing, it is not unreasonable for the UK, an independent and sovereign nation, to be able to maintain its own economic integrity?
The Prime Minister
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Of course the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom is important and must be preserved and that is under some stress, as we have seen in Northern Ireland, as he knows well from his previous role. He has my commitment to the Good Friday agreement, which was something I discussed not only with our European counterparts but also the President. We remain committed to delivering all strands of that agreement, and that is what I will work tirelessly to do.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Were there any discussions at the G20 about the situation in Iran? I have heard from a lot of constituents who want to express their solidarity with the protesters and their outrage at the way the regime is cracking down on them. What steps can the G20 take to support progress towards stability and democracy in Iran?
The Prime Minister
The protests send a clear message that the Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken. As I mentioned, we have now sanctioned 24 extra people, both political and security officials, for their role in the crackdown on protesters. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently summoned Iran’s most senior diplomat in the UK to make it clear that we do not tolerate threats to life and intimidation of any kind.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Putin was emboldened to attack Ukraine by the continual appeasement from western democracies over many years? Why does he not think that a similar appeasement of the Chinese dictatorship will not result in a similar disaster?
The Prime Minister
Our approach to China is in complete alignment with the United States, Canada and Australia. It is one that is clear-eyed about the challenges that China poses to our values, interests and economic security, which is why it is right that we take robust action to defend ourselves against that, as we saw just yesterday with the decision on Chinese investment in a sensitive industry in this country.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
One of the key global challenges facing the G20 is migration and refugees. I know that this country has a proud history of fulfilling our international obligations to the most vulnerable, including children. Can the Prime Minister confirm that no unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under the age of eight are currently being held at Manston? If the Prime Minister does not know the answer, will he write to me as a matter of urgency?
The Prime Minister
I would be happy to write to the right hon. Lady. She will know well that we have different processes and procedures in place for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to make sure that they get extra safeguarding protection as they are rightly due. I will get back to her with an update on where we are.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure in recent weeks just show the full extent of Putin’s complete desperation. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the UK is providing Ukraine with the energy equipment and the support that it needs to help repair its infrastructure, so that it can keep its lights and heat on in the months ahead?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise that particular need of the Ukrainians. It is something that I have discussed a couple of times with President Zelensky, and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are playing our part in providing funding and expertise to help resolve some of the issues. The Ukrainians, I know, are very grateful for that support.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The G20 communiqué urged all parties to finalise and adopt the forthcoming COP15 global biodiversity framework in Montreal. At this crisis time for nature, both globally and at home, the Prime Minister will know the importance of leading by example, so, as well as accelerating the UK’s domestic environmental agenda, will he ensure that he is not forced into another last-minute U-turn as we saw ahead of COP26? Will he commit now to attending COP15 in person and show that leadership?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that anyone could doubt our commitment to biodiversity and nature. It was something on which the United Kingdom proudly led at Glasgow last year to put it on the agenda. We will have a range of different people attending Montreal. I was very pleased that we ensured that the G20 communiqué reaffirmed the G20’s commitments to the targets that were set at COP. We fought very hard for that, and we should all be proud that it is there in the G20 communiqué.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister a specific question regarding the conversation that he had with Prime Minister Trudeau? The United Kingdom and Canada have a close relationship through being members of the G7, G20, Five Eyes, NATO and the Commonwealth. Whether it is friendships in Parliament or friendships with world leaders, one needs to know where one stands. Did the Prime Minister ask Prime Minister Trudeau about Canada stepping up to meet the target of 2% of GDP towards NATO, and did the United Kingdom ask Canada to do more in the High North, the Arctic, where we face greater threat from Russia, and where it has specific expertise?
The Prime Minister
I encourage all members of NATO to make their way towards the 2% target—something that we have proudly done in this country for some years. Our co-operation with Canada is deep. Prime Minister Trudeau was pleased to announce an extension of Canadian support for our programme to train Ukrainian soldiers here—something on which we are working closely together. I would be happy to pick up the conversation on the High North. Again, that would be a feature of our refreshed integrated review.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister knows that the energy charter treaty enables fossil fuel companies to sue Governments that pass legislation undermining their future profits in the name of stopping climate change. That is why Germany and France have announced they are withdrawing from it, as are Poland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain. When does he anticipate the UK withdrawing from the energy charter treaty, or does he put fossil fuel profits ahead of climate change? Will he raise that within World Trade Organisation reform?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman mentions a range of other countries in relation to fossil fuels, but it was the United Kingdom that led through COP last year in ensuring that we end climate finance for coal plants—something that other countries need to catch up with us on. We will continue to champion that in all these forums, because it is the right thing to do and it was a commitment we made at Glasgow that needs to be upheld.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Having just returned from Ukraine with the Defence Committee and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, I must tell the House how movingly grateful the Ukrainians are for all the support we give, and in particular to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his outstanding leadership of this country in fighting the Russian aggression. However, there are shortages of food, ammunition and military equipment. While we and the United States are doing our bit, there is concern that other countries are not. Can he inform the House whether, during the “G19” or G20 meeting, he heard any feedback from other countries that they will step up to the plate as we and the Americans are doing?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. That remains a feature of all our conversations with allies. There are many different ways that people can play their part—for example, as I mentioned, the Canadians have recently extended their support for training Ukrainians here—but he is right that we need to keep up the pressure. The UK has shown great leadership on this, alongside America, and we will jointly encourage others to follow our lead and ensure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position to bring an end to this awful conflict.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister agree that private citizens in the UK should follow the example of several British businesses and sell any shares they have in businesses that still operate in Russia?
The Prime Minister
The United Kingdom took the lead in imposing some of the most stringent economic sanctions on the Russian economy, Russian businesses and Russian individuals. It is pleasing that other countries have followed. We will continue to push other countries to follow our lead on sanctions and we will continue to tighten them where we think it can make a difference.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his update on trade talks. In those talks, was there any discussion of extending the arrangements to include our No. 1 industry: finance and professional services?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows this area well. It is important that we take our time with trade deals, because services liberalisation, which as he knows is important for our economy, often takes longer to negotiate than simple tariff reductions on goods. Our economy has an incredible services sector; it is important that it benefits from trade deals, and I want to ensure that that happens.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister met Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman earlier this week, did he challenge him on the way Saudi Arabia has been blocking the proposal at COP27 for the phasing down of all fossil fuels?
The Prime Minister
We had a wide-ranging conversation on a range of topics, including climate change. We are committed to our obligations under the COP agreement and we welcome Saudi Arabia’s commitment to be net zero by 2060. There are many different opportunities for Saudi Arabia to play its part as COP president coming up, and we look forward to supporting it in that endeavour.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The last few years have shown us the importance of resilient supply chains. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a priority for his discussions with allies at the G20 was decoupling our supply chains from authoritarian regimes in key areas such as critical minerals and semiconductors?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am pleased to tell her that just yesterday the Business Secretary made a decision on semiconductors that should give her and others confidence that we take this matter incredibly seriously. I discussed critical minerals with many of our allies around the world and I am pleased to say that Japan, in its G7 presidency next year, will put economic security at the heart of our collective agenda.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On Northern Ireland, it is reported today in The Times that the Prime Minister promised President Biden that the issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol would be solved by next April. Did he give that commitment to President Biden? The people of Northern Ireland face a long hard winter without a Government in place there, so should there not be a greater sense of urgency from the UK Government to sort it out?
The Prime Minister
As I have said publicly and clearly, I want to see a resolution to this issue as soon as possible. That is why I spoke to my counterparts in Ireland and the European Commission, and others, on almost the first day I took office. I am working very hard to try to bring about a negotiated settlement to the challenges we face, but those challenges on the ground are real: businesses, families and communities are suffering as a result of the protocol. I have made that point loudly and clearly to all our counterparts, and I have urged them to show flexibility and pragmatism in their response so that we can get the situation resolved on the ground and get the Executive back up and running, because that is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate members of the G20, and its chair, on their final communiqué and its unanimous condemnation of the continued invasion of Ukraine, and the Prime Minister and other western leaders on their work to de-escalate tensions between the west and China. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the important work that he is doing multilaterally in the trans-Pacific partnership and bilaterally with India on the free-trade agreement, there are other bilateral opportunities with leading Asian countries? Will he encourage their Heads of Government to undertake working visits to the UK?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely will do that. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his reappointment as a trade envoy to Indonesia? It is a region that he knows particularly well. He has done fantastic work in deepening our bilateral relationship with that country, which will play an increasingly important role in the global economy as the third largest democracy, one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, and soon to be a top-five economy. It is right that we have deep relationships within Indonesia, and I thank him for his part in making sure that that is happening.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Water and sanitation are a major global crisis, causing conflict, migration, inequality for women and girls, and poor health outcomes that are easily preventable. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he had conversations with other G20 members about the water and sanitation crisis, and will he reverse the 80% cuts made by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to water and sanitation projects?
The Prime Minister
The conversations I had with other leaders were incredibly appreciative of the role that the United Kingdom is playing in helping to tackle suffering, poverty and poor sanitation around the world. What was highlighted in particular was our recent commitment of £1 billion to the Global Fund, as well as our track record of supporting countries to alleviate famine. Those are things that everyone in this House should be proud of and this Government will continue to champion them.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the shared commitment to the defence of Ukraine and the rule of law, but my right hon. Friend will know that key to that last element is the work of the International Criminal Court, which in March launched its investigation into war crimes, with an aspiration to issue an indictment by the end of the year. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the UK will continue to do all it can to support that work, including in the difficult task that lies ahead of obtaining custody of Russian military generals so they can stand trial?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, this is an area that my hon. Friend knows well, and she is right to highlight it. I am pleased to tell her that the United Kingdom was out in front in providing both technical and financial resources for the efforts to gather the evidence. I know that the Justice Secretary is in touch with the British prosecutor as well, and the team will have our full support.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
When the Prime Minister met Prime Minister Modi, did he raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been held in arbitrary detention for 1,840 days? The Sikh community in Scotland is incredibly concerned about the situation. Was it just handshakes and Instagram photographs, or did the Prime Minister raise that case?
The Prime Minister
We have consistently raised our concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with all levels of the Indian Government. I discussed more generally with Prime Minister Modi the issues around extradition, and the Foreign Secretary raised this case with India’s Minister of External Affairs just last month on his visit to India.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister made reference to the danger of debt traps for emerging economies. Can he give further information on what steps the United Kingdom has taken to provide emerging economies with alternatives to Chinese money?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for sensible alternatives. We tend to work not just bilaterally but multilaterally through things such as special drawing rights recycling at the International Monetary Fund. [Interruption.] The new resilience and sustainability trust was established with UK leadership, and indeed the new debt service suspension initiative is something that I championed as Chancellor. We need to make sure that we deliver on it.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister laid out his approach to trade deals in his statement. He will be aware that while he was at the G20 the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was describing the trade deal with Australia as
“not actually a very good deal for the UK”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
Does the Prime Minister agree with the right hon. Member, who was formerly the Environment Secretary, and if so what will the Prime Minister do about it? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Prime Minister attempts to answer the question, I should point out that there is far too much noise in the Chamber. One would think that people were anticipating something about to happen and chatting among themselves instead of giving their full attention to the important answers that the Prime Minister is giving to important questions.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe not as important as what is about to come from the Chancellor.
All trade deals involve give and take on both sides. The Australia trade deal will open up new markets for 3 million British jobs, which is fantastic, reduce prices for Australian goods and make it easier for young people to move back and forth between the two countries. Going forward, we will ensure that our trade deals work for the UK. That is what we will deliver.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister has reaffirmed the Government’s strong commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and inhumane invasion, and underlined the leadership that we provided to other countries. Can he confirm that our superb armed forces will continue to provide the appropriate support, especially in training Ukraine’s brave defenders, to ensure that evil cannot triumph and Putin fails, and did he encourage other G20 members to do likewise?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is an issue that he has rightly championed on previous occasions. I can give him that reassurance. The NATO Secretary-General was in the United Kingdom just days ago, visiting the training that we are providing for Ukrainian soldiers. It is looked at favourably by many allies around the world, which is why Prime Minister Trudeau was pleased to confirm when he was with me an extension to Canadian support for that programme. Hopefully many more countries will follow.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
It is not so many months ago that any international conference such as the G20 would have been seized with the situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has now gone off the agenda, but the humanitarian crisis there is moving into absolute tragedy as people are facing starvation. Can the Prime Minister tell us what conversations took place about Afghanistan? In any case, will he now reconvene the kind of donor conference that could make a material difference to starvation in that country?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is right to highlight that Afghanistan continues to experience one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. That is why earlier this year we co-hosted a UN pledging summit, together with Germany and Qatar, that helped to raise over $2 billion for Afghanistan, but he is right to put it on the agenda. I will make sure that we continue to do what we can to support the people there.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
A free trade deal with India is a tremendous opportunity for both the United Kingdom and India. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should not sacrifice quality in order to do a deal quickly; however, during his discussions with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, what obstacles did the Prime Minister clear so that we can get on with the free trade deal that we all want to see?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has rightly been a significant champion of this deal and our relationships with India. I am pleased to have his support. Without negotiating all these things in public, I am pleased that the majority of the substantive negotiation conversations were concluded by the end of October. We will now work at pace with the Indian teams to try to resolve the issues and come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Our closest trading partners are still in the EU. Can the Prime Minister update us on what he did during the G20 summit to improve relationships with EU countries, which, to say the least, are still fragile since Brexit?
The Prime Minister
We may have left the EU, but we have not left Europe, and it is important that we maintain strong and positive relationships with our European partners and allies. That is very much what I intend to do, and I am pleased that those conversations have been going well.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am glad that the situation with regard to refugees all over the world was discussed, but no debate on refugees can be complete without a discussion about the plight of the Rohingya. Could my right hon. Friend confirm that world leaders considered and discussed what further support we can provide to Rohingya refugees in the largest refugee camp in the world, which is a great concern for my constituents?
The Prime Minister
I know that this is an issue of concern for my hon. Friend, and it is right that he raises it and champions the case. I am pleased to tell him that we have sanctioned those people responsible, and we will continue to make sure we provide whatever support we can to the people who need our help.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
In the communiqué from the G20, the words “food”, “food supply” and “food scarcity” are mentioned 54 times. It is good that Britain is taking part in the global community’s fight to make sure that food is properly distributed, but last year, before the Ukraine war, one in nine Britons were driven to use a food bank. Is it not clear that the problem was not disruption of food supply but poverty—poverty driven by No. 10 and No. 11 when the Prime Minister was in the Treasury? Is it not clear that for the poor of Britain, hunger is a nightmare created by Downing Street?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor is about to deliver a statement that will ensure that our economy is strong, that we support the most vulnerable and that we have a clear platform for growth. I urge the hon. Gentleman to wait for it.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Peace on the continent must be restored. It is a fact that no one in Europe is truly safe until Putin fails. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on how we will make that happen alongside our global allies in the G20?
The Prime Minister
What is important is that Russia understands that the global community speaks with one voice in condemning its illegal and barbaric actions. I am pleased that the G20 communiqué expresses that sentiment, as many more countries are joining our efforts to stand up to Russian aggression and support Ukraine.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
During talks on the CPTPP, did the Prime Minister convey the concerns of the UK’s fantastic food and farming industries? What assurances was he able to obtain that those industries will be considered and protected as negotiations continue?
The Prime Minister
I stand by our commitment not to compromise the United Kingdom’s high environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards and will ensure that our trade deals open up new markets for British farmers.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The cost of living in the UK is going up mainly because of the war that Russia is conducting, but it is not just affecting us; it is affecting the eurozone, which has average inflation of 10%. What discussions did the Prime Minister have at the G20 about the strategy to deal with inflation, which is clearly a worldwide problem?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the global nature of the challenges we are facing, caused in part by Russia’s aggression. The G20 communiqué is clear on the responsibility of individual countries to ensure financial stability. As it says, that means delivering long-term fiscal sustainability, and that is what this Chancellor will deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his strong stance on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The actions of Putin and his regime have driven two thirds of G20 countries into economic distress, raising inflation in this country to 10% or 11%, and talk of a recession is prevalent in many countries. Russia is the enemy within the G20. What is the Prime Minister doing to align with all other G20 countries to ostracise Russia and reduce its influence and, if possible, its membership of the G20?
The Prime Minister
It is not possible in a consensual organisation to expel Russia, but I am pleased to say that we work closely with all partners across the G20 to deliver a strong, unified message that the threat and use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible, and today’s era must not be the era for war. I think Russia heard that message loud and clear.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I share my right hon. Friend’s view that China presents a systemic challenge to the west. We have just seen, in Russia, how an authoritarian actor can use their role in our supply chains to damage the global economy. Can he confirm that, when we engage with China on global issues such as climate change or public health, we will never do so at the expense of our national or economic security?
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will always be robust in defending our values and our interest, and that starts with our national security.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Government’s mishandling of the Northern Ireland protocol negotiations is acting as a barrier to trade deals and scientific collaboration. The Prime Minister says that he was much influenced by his time at Stanford, so surely he understands the key role of science and scientific research in driving economic growth, which we sorely need. Will he really exclude British scientists from the world’s biggest scientific research programme, Horizon?
The Prime Minister
No one can doubt my commitment personally to ensuring that the UK remains, as it is, a scientific and technological superpower. That is why we have increased the R&D budget. That is why we are deregulating to support innovation. That is why we are reforming our capital markets to get money to all the companies that need it. We will hear more from the Chancellor about that, but I can give the hon. Lady every assurance that innovation is the way we drive growth, and that is what the Government will deliver.
Autumn Statement
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of the statement and the Opposition Front Bencher’s response will be available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
In the face of unprecedented global headwinds, families, pensioners, businesses, teachers, nurses and many others are worried about the future, so today we deliver a plan to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebuild our economy. Our priorities are stability, growth and public services. We also protect the vulnerable, because to be British is to be compassionate and this is a compassionate Conservative Government.
We are not alone in facing these problems, but today we respond to an international crisis with British values. We are honest about the challenges and we are fair in our solutions. Yes, we take difficult decisions to tackle inflation and keep mortgage rates down, but our plan also leads to a shallower downturn, lower energy bills, higher growth, and a stronger NHS and education system.
There are three priorities then today: stability, growth and public services. I start with stability. High inflation is the enemy of stability. It means higher mortgage rates, more expensive food and fuel bills, businesses failing and unemployment rising. It erodes savings, causes industrial unrest and cuts funding for public services. It hurts the poorest the most and eats away at the trust upon which a strong society is built.
The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that global factors are the primary cause of current inflation. Most countries are still dealing with the fallout from a once-in-a-century pandemic. The furlough scheme, the vaccine roll-out and the response of the NHS did our country proud, but they all have to be paid for. The lasting impact on supply chains has made goods more expensive and fuelled inflation. This has been worsened by a made-in-Russia energy crisis.
Putin’s war in Ukraine has caused wholesale gas and electricity prices to rise to eight times their historic average. Inflation is high here, but higher in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. Interest rates have risen here, but faster in the US, Canada and New Zealand. Growth forecasts have fallen here, but fallen further in Germany. The International Monetary Fund expects one third of the world’s economy to be in recession this year or next.
So the Bank of England, which has done an outstanding job since its independence, now has my wholehearted support in its mission to defeat inflation and I today confirm we will not change its remit. But we need fiscal and monetary policy to work together, and that means the Government and the Bank working in lockstep. It means, in particular, giving the world confidence in our ability to pay our debts. British families make sacrifices every day to live within their means, and so too must their Government because the United Kingdom will always pay its way.
I understand the motivation of my predecessor’s mini-Budget and he was correct to identify growth as a priority, but unfunded tax cuts are as risky as unfunded spending, which is why we reversed the planned measures quickly. As a result, Government borrowing has fallen, the pound has strengthened and the OBR says today that the lower interest rates generated by the Government’s actions are already benefiting our economy and public finances. But credibility cannot be taken for granted and yesterday’s inflation figures show we must continue a relentless fight to bring it down, including a rock solid commitment to rebuild our public finances.
Richard Hughes and his team at the OBR today lay out starkly the impact of global headwinds on the UK economy, and I am enormously grateful to him and his team for their thorough work. The OBR forecasts the UK’s inflation rate to be 9.1% this year and 7.4% next year. It confirms that our actions today help inflation to fall sharply from the middle of next year. It also judges that the UK, like other countries, is now in recession. Overall this year, the economy is still forecast to grow by 4.2%. GDP then falls in 2023 by 1.4%, before rising by 1.3%, 2.6% and 2.7% in the following three years. The OBR says higher energy prices explain the majority of the downward revision in cumulative growth since March. It also expects a rise in unemployment from 3.6% today to 4.9% in 2024, before falling to 4.1%.
Today’s decisions mean that, over the next five years, borrowing is more than halved. This year, we are forecast to borrow 7.1% of GDP, or £177 billion; next year, 5.5% of GDP, or £140 billion; then by 2027-28, it falls to 2.4% of GDP, or £69 billion. As a result, underlying debt as a percentage of GDP starts to fall from a peak of 97.6% in 2025-26 to 97.3% in 2027-28.
I also confirm two new fiscal rules. The first is that underlying debt must fall as a percentage of GDP by the fifth year of a rolling five-year period. The second is that public sector borrowing over the same period must be below 3% of GDP. The plan I am announcing today meets both rules.
Today’s statement delivers a consolidation of £55 billion, and means inflation and interest rates end up significantly lower. We achieve this in a balanced way. In the short term, as growth slows and unemployment rises, we will use fiscal policy to support the economy. The OBR confirms that, because of our plans, the recession is shallower and inflation is reduced. Unemployment is also lower, with about 70,000 jobs saved as a result of our decisions today. Then, once growth returns, we increase the pace of consolidation to get debt falling. This further reduces the pressure on the Bank to raise interest rates, because as Conservatives we do not leave our debts to the next generation.
So this is a balanced path to stability, tackling inflation to reduce the cost of living and protect pensioner savings, while supporting the economy on a path to growth. But it means taking difficult decisions. Anyone who says there are easy answers is not being straight with the British people. Some argue for spending cuts, but that would not be compatible with high-quality public services. Others say savings should be found by increasing taxes, but Conservatives know that high-tax economies damage enterprise and erode freedom. We want low taxes and sound money, but Conservatives know that sound money has to come first, because inflation eats away at the pound in people’s pockets even more insidiously than taxes. So with just under half of the £55 billion consolidation coming from tax, and just over half from spending, this is a balanced plan for stability.
I turn first to our decisions on tax. I have tried to be fair by following two broad principles: first, we ask those with more to contribute more; and secondly, we avoid the tax rises that damage growth. Although my decisions today do lead to a substantial tax increase, we have not raised headline rates of taxation, and tax as a percentage of GDP will increase by just 1% over the next five years.
I start with personal taxes. Asking more from those who have more means that the first difficult decision I take on tax is to reduce the threshold at which the 45p rate becomes payable from £150,000 to £125,140. Those earning £150,000 or more will pay just over £1,200 more in tax every year. We are also taking difficult decisions on tax-free allowances. I am maintaining at current levels the income tax personal allowance, higher rate threshold, main national insurance thresholds and the inheritance tax thresholds for a further two years, taking us to April 2028. Even after that, we will still have the most generous set of tax-free allowances of any G7 country.
I am also reforming allowances on unearned income. The dividend allowance will be cut from £2,000 to £1,000 next year, and then to £500 from April 2024. The annual exempt amount for capital gains tax will be cut from £12,300 to £6,000 next year, and then £3,000 from April 2024. Those changes still leave us with more generous allowances than countries such as Germany, Ireland, France, and Canada.
Because the OBR forecasts that half of all new vehicles will be electric by 2025, to make our motoring tax system fairer, I have decided that from then electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from vehicle excise duty. Company car tax rates will remain lower for electric vehicles, and I have listened to industry bodies and will limit rate increases to 1 percentage point a year for three years from 2025.
The OBR expects housing activity to slow over the next two years, so the stamp duty cuts announced in the mini-Budget will remain in place but only until 31 March 2025. After that, I will sunset the measure, creating an incentive to support the housing market, and the jobs associated with it, by boosting transaction during the period when the economy most needs it.
I now turn to business taxes. Although I have decided to freeze the employers national insurance contributions threshold until April 2028, we will retain the employment allowance at its new higher level of £5,000. That means that 40% of all businesses will pay no NICs at all. The VAT threshold is already more than twice as high as the EU and OECD averages. I will maintain it at that level until March 2026.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister successfully negotiated a landmark international tax deal to make sure that multinational corporations, including big tech companies, pay the right tax in the countries where they operate. I will implement those reforms, making sure that the UK gets our fair share. Alongside further measures to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, that will raise an additional £2.8 billion by 2027-28.
I have also heard concerning reports of abuse and fraud in research and development tax relief for small and medium-sized enterprises, so I have decided today to cut the deduction rate for the SME scheme to 86% and the credit rate to 10% but increase the rate of the separate R&D expenditure credit from 13% to 20%. Despite raising revenue, the OBR has confirmed that those measures will have no detrimental impact on the level of R&D investment in the economy. Ahead of the next Budget, we will work with industry to understand what further support R&D-intensive SMEs may require.
I turn next to windfall taxes. I have no objection to windfall taxes—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—if they are genuinely about windfall profits caused by unexpected increases in energy prices. But—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members are getting excited at the talk of windfall taxes. Can I just say that any such tax should be temporary, not deter investment and recognise the cyclical nature of energy businesses? So, taking account of that, I have decided that from 1 January until March 2028 we will increase the energy profits levy from 25% to 35%. The structure of our energy market also creates windfall profits for low-carbon electricity generation, so we have decided to introduce, from 1 January, a new, temporary 45% levy on electricity generators. Together, those measures will raise £14 billion next year.
Finally, I turn to business rates. It is an important principle that bills should accurately reflect market values, so we will proceed with the revaluation of business properties from April 2023, but I will soften the blow on businesses with a nearly £14 billion tax cut over the next five years. Nearly two thirds of properties will not pay a penny more next year and thousands of pubs, restaurants and small high street shops will benefit. That will include a new Government-funded transitional relief scheme, as called for by the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, the Federation of Small Businesses and others, benefiting around 700,000 businesses.
Our plan for the cost of living delivers lower inflation, lower mortgage rates, a shallower downturn and lower unemployment, but it also involves public spending discipline, so I turn next to how we protect public services through a challenging period. The Prime Minister’s vision for the country has at its heart a strong NHS and world-class education. We know that a strong economy depends on strong public services, so we will protect them as much as we can as we deliver our plan for stability and growth.
We do have to take difficult decisions on public finances, so we are going to grow public spending, but we are going to grow it more slowly than growth in the economy. For the remaining two years of the spending review, we will protect the increases in departmental budgets that we have already set out in cash terms and then grow resource spending at 1% a year in real terms in the three years that follow. Although Departments will have to make efficiencies to deal with inflationary pressures in the next two years, this decision means that overall spending in public services will continue to rise in real terms for the next five years.
Before I turn to our plans for schools and the NHS, I start with two other areas of spending. The Department for Work and Pensions has a critical role in supporting people into work, and I am proud to live in a country with one of the most comprehensive safety nets anywhere in the world. But I am also concerned that we have seen a sharp increase in economically inactive working-age adults of about 630,000 people since the start of the pandemic. Employment levels have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, which is bad for businesses who cannot fill vacancies and bad for people missing out on the opportunity to do well for themselves and their families, so the Prime Minister has asked the Work and Pensions Secretary to do a thorough review of issues holding back workforce participation, to conclude early in the new year.
Alongside that, I am also committed to helping people already in work to raise their incomes, progress in work and become financially independent. So we will ask over 600,000 more people on universal credit to meet with a work coach so that they can get the support that they need to increase their hours or earnings. I have also decided to move back the managed transition of people from employment and support allowance on to universal credit to 2028, and will invest an extra £280 million in the DWP to crack down on benefit fraud and error over the next two years. The Government’s review of the state pension age will be published in early 2023.
Our security at home depends on our security overseas, so I turn next to defence and other international commitments. The privilege of being this country’s Foreign Secretary showed me first-hand the enormous respect in which this country is held, because the United Kingdom is and has always been a force for good in the world. Nothing sums that up more than the courage of our armed forces; men and women risk their lives every day in defence of our territory and our belief in freedom. Alongside them, I salute the citizens of another country right on the frontline of that fight today: the brave people of Ukraine. The United Kingdom has given them military support worth £2.3 billion since the start of Putin’s invasion, the second highest contribution in the world after the United States, which demonstrates that our commitment to democracy and open societies remains steadfast. In that context, the Prime Minister and I both recognise the need to increase defence spending. But before we make that commitment, it is necessary to revise and update the integrated review, written as it was before the Ukraine invasion. I have asked for that vital work to be completed ahead of the next Budget and today I confirm that we will continue to maintain the defence budget at at least 2% of GDP to be consistent with our NATO commitment.
Another important international commitment is to overseas aid. The OBR’s forecasts show a significant shock to public finances, so it will not be possible to return to the 0.7% target until the fiscal situation allows. We remain fully committed to that target, and the plans I have set out today assume that official development assistance spending will remain around 0.5% for the forecast period. As a percentage of GNI, we were the third highest donor in the G7 last year, and I am proud that our aid commitment has saved thousands of lives around the world. I look forward to working closely with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), now rightly back in his place in Cabinet, to make sure that we continue to play a leadership role in tackling global poverty.
The United Kingdom has also been a global leader on climate change, cutting emissions by more than any other G20 country. But with the existential vulnerability we face, now would be the wrong time to step back from our international climate responsibilities, so I also confirm that, despite the economic pressures, we remain fully committed to the historic Glasgow climate pact agreed at COP26, including a 68% reduction in our own emissions by 2030.
I turn to education. Being pro-education is being pro-growth. But providing our children with a good education is not just an economic mission, it is a moral mission, one to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always been deeply committed. Thanks to the efforts of successive Conservative Education Ministers, in particular my right hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), we have risen nine places in the global league tables for maths and reading in the last seven years.
I still, however, have concerns that not all school leavers get the skills they need for a modern economy. But for the first time ever, this country has a Conservative Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who left school at 16 to become an apprentice, and knows first-hand why good skills matter. There are many important initiatives in place, but as Chancellor I want to know the answer to one simple question: will every young person leave the education system with the skills they would get in Japan, Germany or Switzerland? So, I have appointed Sir Michael Barber to advise me and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary on the implementation of our skills reform programme.
As we raise the skill levels of our school leavers, I want also to ensure that, even in an economic crisis, the improvement in school standards continues to accelerate. Some have suggested putting VAT on independent school fees as a way of increasing core funding for schools, which would raise about £1.7 billion. But according to certain estimates, that would result in up to 90,000 children from the independent sector switching to state schools, giving with one hand only to take away with another.
So instead of being ideological, I am going to be practical: because we want school standards to continue to rise for every single child, we are going to do more than protect the schools budget—we are going to increase it. I can announce today that next year and the year after, we will invest an extra £2.3 billion per annum in our schools. Our message to heads, teachers and classroom assistants is: thank you for your brilliant work. We need it to continue, and in difficult economic circumstances, a Conservative Government are investing more in the public service that defines all our futures.
The service we depend on more than any other is the NHS. As a former Health Secretary, I know how hard people are working on the frontline and how much they are struggling after the pandemic. The biggest issues are workforce shortages and pressures in the social care sector, so today I address them both.
On staff shortages, the former Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee put forward the case for a long-term workforce plan. He even wrote a book about it, which I have read. [Laughter.] I have listened carefully to his proposals and I believe that they have merit, so the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS will publish an independently verified plan for the number of doctors, nurses and other professionals we will need in five, 10 and 15 years’ time, taking full account of the need for better retention and productivity improvements.
I have also listened to extensive representations about the challenges facing the social care sector. It did a heroic job looking after children, disabled adults and older people during the pandemic. Its 1.6 million employees work incredibly hard, but even outside the pandemic, the increasing number of over-80s is putting massive pressure on their services.
I also heard the very real concerns from local authorities, particularly about their ability to deliver the Dilnot reforms immediately, so I will delay the implementation of this important reform for two years, allocating the funding to allow local authorities to provide more care packages. I also want the social care system to help free up some of the 13,500 hospital beds that are occupied by those who should be at home, so I have decided to allocate for adult social care additional grant funding of £1 billion next year and £1.7 billion the year after. Combined with savings from the delayed Dilnot reforms and more council tax flexibilities, this means an increase in funding available for the social care sector of up to £2.8 billion next year and £4.7 billion the year after. That is a big increase.
How we look after our most vulnerable citizens is not just a practical issue but one that speaks to our values as a society, so today’s decision will allow the social care system to deliver an estimated 200,000 more care packages over the next two years—the biggest increase in funding under any Government of any colour in history.
The NHS budget has been increased to record levels to deal with the pandemic, and today I am asking the NHS to join all public services in tackling waste and inefficiency. We want Scandinavian quality alongside Singaporean efficiency, and both better outcomes for citizens and better value for taxpayers. That does not mean asking people on the frontline, often exhausted and burned out, to work harder, which would not be possible or fair, but it does mean asking challenging questions about how to reform all our public services for the better. So with respect to the NHS, I have asked the former Health Secretary and chair of the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care system, Patricia Hewitt, to help me and the Health Secretary to achieve that by advising us on how to make sure that the new integrated care boards, the local NHS bodies, operate efficiently and with appropriate autonomy and accountability. I have also had discussions with NHS England about the inflationary pressures on their budgets.
I recognise that efficiency savings alone will not be enough to deliver the services we all need, so, because of difficult decisions taken elsewhere today, I will increase the NHS budget, in each of the next two years, by £3.3 billion. The chief executive of NHS England, Amanda Pritchard, has said that this should provide sufficient funding for the NHS to fulfil its key priorities. She has said that it shows the Government are serious about their commitment to prioritise our NHS. With £3.3 billion for the NHS and £4.7 billion for social care, there is a record £8 billion package for our health and care system. That is a Conservative Government putting the NHS first.
The NHS and schools in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face equivalent pressures, so the Barnett consequentials of today’s decisions mean an extra £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government, £1.2 billion for the Welsh Government, and £650 million for the Northern Ireland Executive. That means more resources for the schools and hospitals in our devolved nations next year, the year after and every year thereafter.
Our support for public services means that despite needing to find £55 billion in savings and tax rises, we are protecting the amount going into public services in real terms over the five-year period; but if we are to sustain our public services and avoid a doom loop of ever higher taxes and ever lower dynamism, we need economic growth, so I now turn—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have never been interested in growth, but we on this side of the House are. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to get to the end of the autumn statement, like the rest of the people of this country.
Jeremy Hunt
Let us start with a difficult message for the party opposite: you cannot borrow your way to growth. Sound money is the rock upon which long-term prosperity rests; but it is not enough on its own. Our plan is designed to build a high-wage, high-skill economy that leads to long-term prosperity. In his Mais lecture, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister identified the keys to doing that: people, capital and ideas. Today’s increase in the education budget demonstrates our commitment to people and skills, and I will now outline three further growth priorities: energy, infrastructure and innovation.
Cheap, low-carbon, reliable energy must sit at the heart of any modern economy, but Putin’s weaponisation of international gas prices has helped to drive the cost of our national energy consumption right up. This year we will be spending an extra £150 billion on energy compared to pre-pandemic levels, the equivalent of paying for an entire second NHS through our energy bills.
In 2019, a third of global emissions came from energy supply, so unless we act radically to change our approach, we will both bankrupt our economy and harm our planet. Over the long term, there is only one way to stop ourselves being at the mercy of international gas prices: energy independence combined with energy efficiency—energy independence so neither Putin nor anyone else can use energy to blackmail us, and energy efficiency to reduce demand and climate impact as much as possible.
Britain is a global leader in renewable energy. Last year, nearly 40% of our electricity came from offshore wind, solar and other renewables. Since 2010, our renewable energy production has grown faster than any other large country in Europe. But we need to go even further, with a major acceleration of home-grown technologies like offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and, above all, nuclear. This will deliver new jobs, industries and export opportunities, and secure the clean, affordable energy we need to power our future economy and reach net zero. So today I can announce the Government will proceed with the new nuclear power plant at Sizewell C.
Subject to final Government approvals, the contracts for the initial investment will be signed with relevant parties, including EDF, in the coming weeks. This will create 10,000 highly skilled jobs and provide reliable, low-carbon power to the equivalent of 6 million homes for 50 years. Our £700 million investment is the first state backing for a nuclear project in over 30 years and represents the biggest step in our journey to energy independence.
But energy efficiency is just as important, so today we set our country a new national ambition: by 2030 we want to reduce energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15%. Reducing demand by this much means, in today’s prices, a £28 billion saving from our national energy bill, or £450 off the average household bill. This must be a shared mission, with families and businesses playing their part—but so will the Government play our part.
In this Parliament, we are already planning to invest in energy efficiency a total of £6.6 billion. Today I am announcing new funding, from 2025, of a further £6 billion —doubling our annual investment to deliver this new national ambition. Our commitment to the British people is, over time, to remove this single biggest driver of inflation and volatility facing British businesses and consumers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will publish further details on our energy independence plans and launch a new energy efficiency taskforce shortly.
If a modern economy needs secure, clean and affordable energy, it also needs good roads, rail, broadband and 5G infrastructure. Such connections matter because they allow wealth and opportunity to spread to every corner of the country. That is why infrastructure is our second growth priority. Thanks to decisions by this Conservative Government, right now workers right across the country are building or maintaining thousands of miles of roads and railways, installing mobile masts and broadband cables to connect the remotest parts of rural Britain, building and repairing hospitals, and constructing new wind turbines in the North sea.
When looking for cuts, capital is sometimes seen as an easy option, but doing so limits not our budgets but our future. So today I can announce that I am not cutting a penny from our capital budgets in the next two years, and I am maintaining them at that level in cash terms for the following three years. That means that although we are not growing our capital budget as planned, it will still increase from £63 billion four years ago to £114 billion next year and £115 billion the year after, and will remain at that level—more than double what it was under the last Labour Government.
Smart countries build on their long-term commitments rather than discarding them, so today I confirm that because of this decision, alongside Sizewell C, we will deliver the core Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2 to Manchester, East West Rail, the new hospitals programme and gigabit broadband roll-out. All these and more will be funded as promised, with over £600 billion of investment over the next five years to connect our country and grow our economy.
Our national Conservative mission is to level up economic opportunity across the country. That, too, needs investment in infrastructure, so I will proceed with round 2 of the levelling-up fund, at least matching the £1.7 billion value of round 1. We will also drive growth across the UK by working with the Scottish Government on the feasibility study for the A75, supporting the advanced technology research centre in Wales and funding a trade and investment event in Northern Ireland next year.
But to unlock growth right across the country, we need to make it easier for local leaders to make things happen without banging on a Whitehall door. Our brilliant Mayors such as Andy Street and Ben Houchen have shown the power of civic entrepreneurship. We need more of this inspirational local leadership, so today I can announce a new devolution deal that will bring an elected Mayor to Suffolk, and deals to bring Mayors to Cornwall, Norfolk and an area in the north-east to follow shortly. We are also making progress towards trailblazer devolution deals with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority, and soon over half of England will be covered by devolution deals. Taken together, that £600 billion investment in our future growth represents the largest investment in public works for 40 years, so our children and grandchildren can be confident that this Conservative Government are investing in their future.
Along with energy and infrastructure, our third growth priority is innovation. We have a national genius for innovation. Britain is the land of Newton, Darwin, Fleming, Faraday, Franklin, Gilbert and Berners-Lee, the home of three of the world’s top 10 universities, and the country with the largest life sciences and technology sectors in Europe. Thanks to successive Conservative Governments, we remain a science superpower. I salute the work of the former Chancellor George Osborne, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and of the Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for laying the vital foundations to make this possible.
21st-century economies will be defined by new developments in artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and robotics, but we need to be better at turning world-class innovation into world-class companies. As a former entrepreneur—I had to get that in somewhere—I want to combine our technology and science brilliance with our formidable financial services to turn Britain into the world’s next silicon valley.
We learned from the success of Nigel Lawson’s big bang in 1986 that smart regulatory reform can spur investment from all over the world, so today, using our Brexit freedoms, I confirm the next steps in our supply-side transformation. By the end of next year, we will decide on and announce changes to EU regulations in our five growth industries: digital, life sciences, green industries, financial services and advanced manufacturing. I have asked the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, who did such a brilliant job in the pandemic, to lead our work on how to do this.
The second lesson of Nigel Lawson’s big bang is that the most important driver of global success is not tax subsidies but competition, so we will legislate to give the Digital Markets Unit new powers to challenge monopolies and increase the competitive pressure to innovate. To further spur competition, I have listened to requests from businesses, and today I am removing import tariffs on over 100 goods used by UK businesses in their production processes, from car seat parts to bicycle frames.
I will also change our approach to investment zones, which will now focus on leveraging our research strengths by being centred on universities in left-behind areas, to help to build clusters for our new growth industries. My right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary will work with Mayors, devolved Administrations and local partners to achieve this, with the first decisions announced ahead of the spring Budget.
I have heard some speculation that we might cut the research and development budget today, but I believe that that would be a profound mistake. In our 2017 manifesto, we announced a target to invest 2.4% of our GDP in R&D; the latest Office for National Statistics data suggests that the UK is close to meeting that target. I want to go further, so today I am protecting our entire research budget and confirming that we will increase public funding for R&D to £20 billion by 2024-25 as part of our mission to make the United Kingdom a science superpower.
Nigel Lawson’s big bang inspires us today, but nearly 40 years on we must stay true to its mission to make the UK the world’s most innovative and competitive global financial centre, so to further support investment across our economy, I also announce that we are publishing our decision on Solvency II, which will unlock tens of billions of pounds of investment for our growth-enhancing industries.
Our three priorities for growth are energy security, investment in infrastructure, and a plan to turn the United Kingdom into the world’s next silicon valley, transforming British intellectual genius into British commercial success. But alongside British genius, we must remember another great national quality: British compassion. The final part of our plan protects the most vulnerable, and it is to that that I now turn.
Strong public finances are not just to make accountants happy. It is because we took difficult decisions in 2010 that we could afford record funding increases for the NHS, the landmark furlough scheme and now the energy price guarantee. Today, the discipline that we have shown means that we can provide targeted support to help our most vulnerable citizens with the cost of living.
One of the biggest worries for families is energy bills. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), and to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for their leadership in this area. This winter, we will stick with their plan to spend £55 billion to help households and businesses with their energy bills—one of the largest support plans in Europe. From April, we will continue the energy price guarantee for a further 12 months at a higher level of £3,000 per year for the average household. With prices forecast to remain elevated throughout next year, this will mean an average of £500 of support for every household in the country.
At the same time, for the most vulnerable, we will introduce additional cost of living payments next year of £900 to households on means-tested benefits, £300 to pensioner households and £150 for individuals on disability benefit. We will also provide an additional £1 billion of funding to enable a further 12-month extension to the household support fund, helping local authorities to assist those who might otherwise fall through the cracks. For those households that use alternative fuels such as heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas to heat their homes, I am today doubling the support from £100 to £200, which will be delivered as soon as possible this winter. Before the end of this year, we will also bring forward a new targeted approach to support businesses from next April.
But I want to go further to support the people most exposed to high inflation. Around 4 million families live in the social rented sector—almost one fifth of households in England. Their rents are set at 1% above the September inflation rate, which means that on current plans they are set to see rent hikes next year of up to 11%. For many, that would just be unaffordable, so today I can announce that this Government will cap the increase in social rents at a maximum of 7% in 2023-24. Compared with current plans, that is a saving for the average tenant of £200 next year.
This Government introduced—[Interruption.] I thought they cared about the most vulnerable! This Government introduced the national living wage, which has been a giant step in eliminating low pay, so today I am accepting the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission to increase it next year by 9.7%. This means that, from April 2023, the hourly rate will be £10.42, which represents an annual pay rise worth over £1,600 to a full-time worker. It is expected to benefit over 2 million of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and it keeps us on track for our target to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024. It is the largest increase in the UK’s national living wage ever.
There have been some representations on keeping the uplift to working-age and disability benefits below the level of inflation given the financial constraints we face, but that would not be consistent with our commitment to protect the most vulnerable, so today I commit to uprating such benefits by inflation, with an increase of 10.1%. That is an expensive commitment, costing £11 billion, but it means that 10 million working-age families will see a much-needed increase next year, which speaks to our priorities as a Government and our priorities as a nation. On average, a family on universal credit will benefit next year by around £600. To increase the number of households that can benefit from this decision, I will also exceptionally increase the benefit cap by inflation next year.
Finally, I have talked a lot about the British values of compassion, hard work, dignity and fairness, but there is no more British value than our commitment to protect and honour those who built the country we live in, so to support the poorest pensioners I have decided to increase pension credit by 10.1%, which is worth up to £1,470 for a couple and £960 for a single pensioner in our most vulnerable households, but the cost of living crisis is harming not just our poorest pensioners but all pensioners.
Because we have taken difficult decisions elsewhere today, I can also announce that we will fulfil our pledge to the country to protect the pension triple lock. In April, the state pension will increase in line with inflation, an £870 increase, which represents the biggest ever increase in the state pension. To the millions of pensioners who will benefit from this measure, I say: “Now and always, this Government are on your side.”
There is a global energy crisis, a global inflation crisis and a global economic crisis, but the British people are tough, inventive and resourceful. We have risen to bigger challenges before. We are not immune to these headwinds but, with this plan for stability, growth and public services, we will face into the storm. There may be a recession made in Russia, but there is a recovery made in Britain, and we commit to our plan today with British resilience and British compassion.
Because of the difficult decisions we take today, we will strengthen our public finances, bring down inflation, protect jobs and build the first state-backed nuclear power station in 30 years. We will continue with the biggest programme of capital investment in 40 years, protect standards in schools, cut NHS waiting times, fund social care, cap energy bills and support those on benefits. We will protect workers with the biggest ever increase in the national living wage, and we will protect our pensioners with the tiple lock and the biggest ever increase in the state pension.
This is a balanced plan for stability, growth and public services. It shows that you do not need to choose either a strong economy or good public services. With the Conservatives, and only with the Conservatives, you get both. I commend this statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement.
Here we are, the end of 2022. Three Prime Ministers, four Chancellors and four Budgets later, where do we find ourselves? In a worse place than we started the year, with inflation spiralling, growth plunging and living standards falling. Britain is a great country with fantastic strengths but, because of this Government’s mistakes, we are being held back. What people will ask themselves at the next election is, “Are me and my family better off with a Conservative Government?” And the answer is no.
The mess we are in is the result of 12 weeks of Conservative chaos and 12 years of Conservative economic failure: growth dismal, investment down, wages squeezed and public services crumbling. And what does the Chancellor have to offer today? More of the same, with working people paying the price for his failure. The Chancellor should have come here today to ask for forgiveness. At the very least, he could have offered an apology but, no, instead he says his predecessor was correct in his analysis at the mini-Budget that put our economy into freefall. All the country got today was an invoice for the economic carnage that this Government have created. Never again can the Conservatives be seen as the party of economic competence.
It has been clear for weeks what the Government want to do. Step one: blame global factors. Step two: pretend the mini-Budget has nothing to do with any of them. Step three: portray the Chancellor and the Prime Minister as the people who can clear up the mess of their party’s own making. And step four: attempt to lay some so-called traps for the Labour party. They have even had George Osborne in to advise them on how to party like it is 2010.
But this is not a game. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s ability to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent and to pay the bills after 12 years of Conservative stagnation that have left our country so much worse off. It is about the fact that, when the global storm hit, we were uniquely exposed because of the choices that the Conservatives made.
Nobody doubts that the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine have had profound implications, and the whole House is united in its condemnation of Russia’s aggression, but Britain’s problems started before the covid pandemic and before Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The UK has grown by an average of 1.4% a year under the Conservatives, compared with 2.1% a year in the previous Labour years. We are the only G7 economy that is still poorer than before the pandemic.
As the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee yesterday, the US has grown by 4.2% since the pandemic and the GDP of eurozone countries is 2.1% higher, yet the UK is 0.7% smaller than at the start of the pandemic. We are not recovering; we are heading into recession, as the OBR confirmed today. The Governor described these differences as dramatic and stark. How does the Chancellor describe them, and how does he explain them?
This is the price of a decade of Tory choices and economic failure, and it is set to continue, with the IMF forecasting that, of the 38 most industrialised economies, the UK will have the slowest growth of any of them in the next two years. The Chancellor is saying today that he will be honest, so let us be honest. No one was talking about cuts to public spending two months ago, and no other advanced economy is cutting spending or increasing taxes on working people as it heads into recession. This Government have forced our economy into a doom loop, where low growth leads to higher taxes, lower investment and squeezed wages, with the running down of public services, all of which hits economic growth again. Instead of learning from the mistakes of the last decade, they are simply repeating them. We need to break free from this vicious cycle of stagnation, with fairer choices and a proper plan for economic growth.
The Chancellor and Prime Minister are trying to convince us that Britain faces problems that are nothing to do with them and that the mini-Budget, which imposed a Tory mortgage premium, put pensions in peril and trashed our reputation around the world, was all just a bad dream. It is their Bobby Ewing strategy, with Downing Street as “Dallas”. Old cast members return as if nothing has happened, with tangled plot lines to keep the audience, but the truth is that the series has lost all credibility and everyone knows it is long past time that it was cancelled. The problem for the British people is that this is not a dream. This is the everyday nightmare of Tory Britain.
The Conservatives would have us believe that they are not responsible for the last 12 years of failure. In doing so, they take the British people for fools. Millions are already worried sick about how to make ends meet and now face the added stress of higher mortgage payments, the prospect of home ownership becoming more and more remote, and rents going through the roof.
What does that mean? Family holidays cancelled, savings depleted, hopes for the future replaced by sleepless nights, and all of that on top of the fact that the average worker is earning less today than when the Tories came to power 12 years ago. The Government have presided over the biggest wage squeeze in centuries. This was a crisis made in Downing Street and it is ordinary working people who are paying the price.
As I was coming into Westminster today, I read a timely warning from the police about pickpockets in the area. They warn:
“You may have an idea of what a pickpocket looks like but they’re far less likely to stand out in a crowd than you might think…they may work in teams to distract the target…One of their tactics is…where a thief will appear to be over-friendly…while pickpocketing you.”
I must report that in the last hour the Conservatives have picked the pockets, purses and wallets of the entire country, as the Chancellor has deployed a raft of stealth taxes taking billions of pounds from ordinary working people—a Conservative double whammy that sees frozen tax thresholds and double-digit inflation erode the real value of people’s wages.
Just one of those freezes in the personal allowance will cost the average earner more than £600, making it even harder to make ends meet. At the same time, the Government are forcing local councils to put up council tax. The Chancellor seems to have confirmed today a council tax bombshell worth £100 for a typical band D property, taking council tax for such properties above £2,000 for the first time. Local people, including those with Conservative councils, will be forced to pay more because of the destruction that the Conservatives have wreaked on our economy.
This comes at a time when councils are already in dire straits because of cuts made by Conservative Governments. They probably sat around the tables in Downing Street thinking that this was some clever trick, but no one is to blame except the Government that have been in power for 12 years—not local authorities, but this Tory Government—for more taxes, more inflation and higher mortgages. Instead of tricks and stealth taxes, why do they not have a proper economic plan for Britain that puts working people at its heart? Why do they refuse to have a real industrial strategy that gives business certainty, unlocks investment and means that Britain can once again lead the world in the industries of the future?
The Chancellor is trying to claim that today’s statement is fair, yet we learn that of all the things that he could save from the wreckage of the kamikaze Budget that he chooses to press ahead with, it is their plan to lift the cap on bankers’ bonuses. At a time when he is urging wage constraints for everybody else, how can he remotely claim that that is fair?
After weeks of, “Will he? Won’t he?”, we learn today that the Chancellor will not, after all, be clamping down on non-doms—tax free income for millionaires while millions face frozen tax allowances and council tax highs. How can he possibly claim that this is fair? He refuses to act, and I wonder why. Maybe that was the only policy that he cannot get signed off by No. 10 Downing Street. I say if you make Britain your home, you should pay your taxes here.
What about the private equity managers, earning millions, who benefit from a tax break on their bonuses, which means that they pay far less tax as a proportion of their incomes than ordinary hardworking people? Did the Chancellor close that loophole today and make sure that they pay their fair share of tax? He did not. He made ordinary working people pay the price instead.
Time and again we have seen how quick the Conservatives are to raise taxes on working people. The Chancellor has even compared himself to Scrooge. He is asking working people to take the hit, with less money in their pockets in the run up to Christmas, but also for years to come. But if you are a banker, a non-dom or a private equity manager, do not worry: Scrooge has not cancelled your Christmas. [Interruption.]An hon. Member asks from a sedentary position, “What about taxes?” Well, non-doms do not pay taxes—that is the whole point. The Government could close that loophole today.
And that is before we even get on to the energy giants. After months of resistance from this Prime Minister, the Government have finally been dragged, kicking and screaming, to extend the windfall tax that Labour has been calling for since January. Yet they still leave billions of pounds on the table, profits that are the windfalls of war, because they have failed to close a huge loophole that they created that hands out massive tax breaks to those oil and gas giants for doing the things that they were going to do anyway.
For those wondering why some energy giants have paid no windfall tax in the last quarter, despite record profits and eye-watering bills for consumers, the answer is that decisions that this Prime Minister made when he was Chancellor, confirmed by the current Chancellor, let the energy giants off the hook once again.
The Government have announced plans for energy bills next year, but bill payers will still see prices go up next spring, leaving far too many people wondering how they will make ends meet. For every pound of windfall tax left on the table, people are faced with higher prices on their bills. The Tories’ failure on energy goes back much further. They closed down gas storage, blocked onshore wind and solar, and slashed support for home insulation.
Today the Chancellor says that he will act on energy efficiency, but I am afraid that is all far too late. We called for the insulation of 2 million homes a year more than 12 months ago. That could cut bills by £1,000 not just for one year, but for every year to come, and they did nothing. Insulation levels in 2021 were 20 times lower than in 2010 because of their neglect, and now he proposes a package, but we have to wait until 2025 for them to act. Why? People are facing a bills crisis now. Years and years will have gone by while he sits back. Millions of families could have been helped and they have not been.
And still the Government block renewable power, such as onshore wind, that could bring energy bills down, create good jobs in all parts of the country, and ensure that Britain can lead the way in the industries of the future. Clean power is the right solution to the energy price crisis, but, yet again, the Conservatives have failed. They have failed to protect us from future shocks, failed to tackle the cost of living crisis, and failed to take the decisions in our country’s national interest. It is because they have failed to grow the economy that they are having to bring forward yet another statement with tax rises and spending cuts.
The last Prime Minister and Chancellor embarked on a reckless sugar rush that abandoned fiscal rectitude, and the Conservatives all cheered for it, but the current Prime Minister and Chancellor have given up on growth altogether. How do we know? It is because the Office for Budget Responsibility has seen their plans and downgraded growth in the months and years ahead. Achieving the levels of growth that this country needs is not like flicking on a switch. We need a serious long-term plan to get our economy growing again, powered by the talents and efforts of millions of ordinary working people and thousands of businesses. We need a fairer, greener, more dynamic economy, creating good jobs in every part of the country—in homegrown renewables, in green hydrogen, in carbon capture and storage—with Labour’s green prosperity plan and a modern industrial strategy where Government work hand in hand with business, properly fixing business rates so that small businesses and our high street businesses thrive again, fixing the holes in the Government’s Brexit deal to help UK businesses to trade and compete in the world, and ensuring that Britain is the best place in which to start and grow a business. That is what a Labour Government will do.
While our public services are struggling and working people are being stretched, the rampant waste and cronyism from this Government continue apace. It does not seem to concern the Chancellor that his Government dished out £3.5 billion of contracts to friends and donors of the Conservative party. The latest Prime Minister spent so much time when he was Chancellor practising his signature for his glossy Instagram graphics that he failed to put in place even the most simple checks on covid support. That is why the former Treasury Minister, Lord Agnew, described the current Prime Minister’s fraud failures as “schoolboy errors”. The Prime Minister left the doors to the vaults wide open to organised criminals and drugs gangs who helped themselves to £6.7 billion of taxpayers’ money—money that the Government are failing to retrieve.
Last month, it was slipped out that the Taxpayer Protection Taskforce, set up to get this money back, is being wound down. The Government have just given up and the Conservatives are turning yet again to our crucial public services to make up the money. The fraudsters may think that they have got away with it, but a Labour Government will hunt them down for everything that they have taken from the taxpayer. The country is sick of being ripped off by the Tories; we want our money back.
It is because of Tory failure that our crumbling public services are set to suffer even more. Ordinary people lose yet again. Never before have people paid so much in tax and yet got so little in return. At the weekend, the Chancellor admitted that the NHS was already on the brink of collapse. With 7 million people on NHS waiting lists, how much longer will that list get? Three in 10 people are leaving education without GCSE English and maths. What will that do to our society and our future economy? Why do the Tories have an ideological objection to putting VAT on school fees, which the Chancellor himself admits would raise £1.7 billion? By their actions it is clear that the Government do not value our public services or the contribution of those working in them. What do we hear today? Reviews on schools, the NHS workforce, social care and waste, but what we need is action. Now is the time for delivery, not more reviews.
The Chancellor had previously said that one of his biggest regrets as Health Secretary was failing to fix social care. Today, he has further delayed the Government’s much-promised social care cap. This is yet another broken promise, after 12 years of Tory failure on social care. The Tories have trashed our public services and the statement today has proved that they are doing nothing to turn that around.
The Conservatives have crashed our economy, given up on growth and sent inflation through the roof and, as usual, it is ordinary working people who are paying the price. It is a familiar tune. Every mortgage they raise, every cut they make, every tax they hike, the Conservatives are costing you. What have we heard today? Yet more excuses and unfair choices. They have failed to tackle the cost of living crisis. They have failed to show how they will fix our public services. They have failed to show how they will deliver growth. They have no plan for the future of our country. After everything we have heard today, and after 12 long years of Tory failure, the conclusion we must come to is that Britain can no long afford a Conservative Government.
Jeremy Hunt
Today, we have announced tax rises and spending cuts of £55 billion. We can debate the reasons, but to govern is to choose and the shadow Chancellor did not answer the simplest of questions: does she back the need for a package of this size to bring down inflation? If Labour cannot answer, it is not fit to govern.
The shadow Chancellor says that it is the Government’s fault, but with a made-in-Russia recession, a once-in-a-century pandemic, higher inflation in Europe, bigger cuts to growth in Germany, bigger interest-rate hikes in America, to blame this on a mini-Budget that was cancelled in three weeks is just not credible. Nor are her facts right. She said that the Government are making the recession worse. Well, today, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility says that we are making it shallower, saving 70,000 jobs.
The shadow Chancellor says that this is austerity 2.0, but, in the 2010 Parliament, spending fell about 3% a year. In this Parliament, even in the next two years, it will rise 3% a year. There is £11 billion for the NHS and schools. It is not just more for our public services; it is massively more than she has ever promised. Then she talked about our record over 12 years, so let us do that: growth higher than Germany, France, Italy or Japan; the lowest unemployment for nearly 50 years; good or outstanding schools up by a quarter; and 4 million more patients in good or outstanding hospitals. In other words, growth up, employment up, school standards up and NHS funding up. Because she will not back this package, the British people today know that, under Labour, it is inflation worse, cost of living worse, unemployment worse and competitiveness worse. If we want stability, growth and funding for public services, the choice is plan or no plan. We have a plan. Where is hers?
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is good to see the return of the forecast from the official Office for Budget Responsibility. We all remember why a Conservative Government had to set it up. We will have the OBR in front of our Committee next Tuesday, when we can question the underlying assumptions of the forecast.
I welcome the fact that the Chancellor confirmed today that his announcements go with the grain of what the Bank of England is trying to do in bringing down inflation. That surely is the most important economic challenge for our country at the moment. But can he elaborate a bit more on his thinking? He has tasked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with helping back into work those who have left the workforce and he has announced welcome support for those on the welfare system of £900 next year. Can he talk us through his thinking on some of those cliff edges and incentives to work?
Jeremy Hunt
I welcome my hon. Friend to her chairmanship of the Select Committee; I know she will do a brilliant job. She makes an important point. It is essential that we work hand in glove with the Bank of England to bring down inflation. Today, the OBR confirmed that inflation is lower because of the decisions we take. She is right to focus on the worrying increase in the economically inactive, which is not just causing supply chain problems for businesses, but driving inflation. That is why we are lucky to have an excellent Work and Pensions Secretary who will make this his top priority in the work he is doing for the Prime Minister and who will bring his conclusions to this House as soon as possible.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The current Chancellor comes here today as the seventh Chancellor in seven years, and a mere 55 days after the last Chancellor came to this House to present his chaotic mini-Budget. His predecessor managed to crash the economy in 26 minutes; this Chancellor has spent the past 53 minutes trying to patch up those mistakes. The reality is that we will all be living with the disastrous consequences of Trussonomics for some time to come.
The Chancellor has brought forward new targets because he is failing to meet the old ones. His difficult choices are of nothing compared with what many of our constituents face. The Tories spent the summer squabbling in a leadership contest when they should have been preparing for the difficult winter ahead. Now the UK is £30 billion worse off because of the incompetence of the Conservative party. Scotland is paying a heavy price indeed for being in this Union.
The Tories are attempting to cut their way out of a recession. It will not work. Public sector workers deserve a proper pay rise to face the cost of living crisis that the Tories have created, and the Scottish Government do not have the same flexibility as this Chancellor to borrow or make changes in-year. Their existing budgets have already been squeezed and reprioritised and there is nothing left to cut.
The Chancellor says Scotland will get £1.5 billion in Barnett consequentials, yet the Scottish Government’s budget is worth £1.7 billion less than when it was introduced last December. Scotland is being short-changed yet again. Will he listen carefully to what John Swinney has asked for and provide the funding Scotland deserves?
The Chancellor is proposing fiscal tightening on a scale not seen since George Osborne—and we are still living with the real consequences of those poverty-inducing policies: the two-child limit, the rape clause, the brutal benefits sanctions. The Glasgow Centre for Population Health has been clear that the previous round of Tory austerity caused 330,000 excess deaths. More of the same from this Chancellor is a price society cannot afford.
Restoring the triple lock and uprating benefits by inflation is not some victory to be celebrated. Barnardo’s has described it as a “minimum first step”. The rate of inflation announced by the Chancellor is not the actual rate of inflation now—nor, perhaps, will it be the rate of inflation by the time the measure comes into force. Again, the Government are not keeping step with the cost of living. Any compassionate Government with an ounce of humanity would not have to be dragged to make such a decision.
The Chancellor talks about uprating the benefit cap—he should scrap the benefit cap. In Scotland, we have introduced the groundbreaking Scottish child payment and increased it to £25 per child per week, now up to the age of 16. There is no two-child limit in Scotland, because we value every child and want them all to have the best future. Will he commit to the same?
The Chancellor mentioned nothing in his statement for those struggling on no recourse to public funds, and nothing either for asylum seekers trying to survive on just 40 quid a week. Will he increase that support or, better yet, allow them to work and to contribute, as so many want to do?
Inflation is running at 11.1%, a 41-year high. For those in lower-income households, the Resolution Foundation says it runs at 12.5%, as more of their income goes on the essentials. The price of food is up 16.4% in a year, with basics such as bread, milk and pasta all increasing and squeezing household budgets. Combining that with the soaring cost of energy, households are finding it impossible to make ends meet.
Cornwall Insight has estimated that the energy price cap next year may come in at an eye-watering £3,702. I appreciate what the Chancellor has said about energy support, but his energy support package must be wider and deeper. It must lift those who are stuck on prepayment meters and make sure they can turn the heating on. Will he listen to National Energy Action, which is calling for a targeted energy price guarantee, similar to a social tariff, set at £1,500 annually until October 2024?
National Energy Action says that should be for all households on means-tested benefits and disability benefits, those in receipt of attendance allowance and carers allowance and those who are living on less than two thirds of the median household income, and it should be targeted to people living in areas of multiple deprivation. We all know that energy bills will not be reducing any time soon. The Chancellor must ensure that people get the help they need to stay safe and warm.
Insulation schemes should have happened already. The UK Government cut back dramatically on schemes while the Scottish Government invested. More than 100,000 homes in Scotland have been made more energy efficient, while the UK Government have ignored the problem. Now they say, “Wait until 2025.” It is not even jam tomorrow; it is, “Huddle under a blanket for three years until we get to you.” It is absolutely ludicrous.
Will the Chancellor consider not a rent cap, but a rent freeze to help renters, as the Scottish Government have done? For those struggling with their mortgages, will he do all he can to encourage banks to support their customers, and will he fix and expand the restrictive support for mortgage interest scheme, to make it more accessible to those who need it?
There is little in this statement to give hope to businesses. Many that managed to survive the pandemic are now struggling to keep going. Increased labour and energy costs, supply chain difficulties and the crash in the pound have all made a difficult situation so much worse.
I have raised many times in this place the impossibly high contracts that companies are having to sign for their energy bills right now, and the Chancellor was not at all clear how he expects them to keep going once the reprieve finishes in the spring. Companies cannot wait any longer for answers, because for too many it will be too much. We know insolvencies are already on the rise, and with companies going bust, rising unemployment will inevitably follow.
We know that recession has a bigger impact on younger workers. When we look at the Chancellor’s statement, the minimum wage rates are still lagging behind for younger workers. They are being discriminated against on the basis of their age, and that continues to be unacceptable.
There was also nothing in the Chancellor’s statement about carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland. Why not? There was a 45% hike on electricity generators—more than on oil and gas—which will hammer Scotland’s renewables sector.
I will give the Chancellor some opportunities to bring some cash into the UK Government’s coffers. The London School of Economics says that ending the non-dom status could bring in £3.2 billion of additional tax. Taxing dividends at the same rate as income from work would stand to raise more than £6 billion a year.
For some time now, big companies have been engaging in significant share buybacks. Oil and gas, financial services and other companies are using share buybacks because their mega-profits are more than they know what to do with. Those profits are not being invested in new development; they are simply being creamed off. It is estimated that FTSE 100 firms are now due to return £55.5 billion to their shareholders via share buybacks this year.
The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that a one-off 25% windfall tax on share buybacks of FTSE-listed companies could raise £11 billion in a single year. Even if companies were discouraged from buying back shares under the scheme, it would lead to higher reinvestment in development rather than profits. Why would the Chancellor pass up such an economic opportunity?
The Chancellor should also grow the tax base by increasing immigration and improving the lot of those who have already done us the significant honour of coming to live, work and study in our communities. We should thank them, not tell them they are not welcome. It is beyond time that the UK had a sensible, grown-up conversation about immigration. We on the SNP Benches are clear that immigration is an economic good. The OBR forecasts that higher net migration reduces pressures on Government debt over time. The Chancellor should consider that.
Finally, I come to the policy that unites all the Unionist parties in this House: Brexit. The Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems—all Brexiteers now, fully committed to this futile project of deliberate self-destruction. Dr Swati Dhingra of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee told the Treasury Committee yesterday:
“It’s undeniable now that we’re seeing a much bigger slowdown in trade in the UK”
than in the rest of the world. Wages are lower, business investment is lower, and the UK is underperforming in both imports and exports. That political choice has brought us here today, to the Chancellor’s decisions, which will affect us all but will hit the least well off the very hardest.
The economist Michael Saunders said this week:
“If we hadn’t had Brexit, we probably wouldn’t be talking about an austerity budget”.
Put that on the side of a bus.
Scotland did not vote for this. We did not choose austerity and we did not choose Brexit. The OBR says that living standards are to fall by 7% over the next two years. It ought to be of no surprise to anybody that just shy of half of Scots think the UK will not exist in its current form in the next five years. This is a UK so weak that no one would wish to join it. Scotland cannot be forced to stay in broke, broken Brexit Britain.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is complaining about economic instability damaging business in Scotland, but she supports the most destabilising policy of all: separation from the United Kingdom. She complained about Brexit, but 1 million voters in Scotland voted for Brexit, and we are implementing the will of the British people. Behind the sparring in this House, we actually have very good relations with the Scottish Government. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already met John Swinney, the Finance Minister, and we have good co-operation.
I need to correct the hon. Lady on one point. She said that we are not investing in energy efficiency. What I said—if she listened to my words—is that in this Parliament we are spending £6.6 billion in energy efficiency, and a further £6 billion from 2025. I understand that separation means more to her than anything else in politics, but families in Scotland heard other things today. They heard about the £600 million for the Scottish NHS, £385 million for schools and more than £4 billion to help Scottish families with their energy bills, on top of £4 billion to build the latest frigates. That is because we are more than neighbours; we are family, and Conservatives always back families.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I welcome and commend my right hon. Friend’s and the Government’s commitment to sound money and sound public finances. I also welcome the commitment my right hon. Friend has given to innovation and R&D in developing and rebuilding our economy, but could I ask him to go further and look again at the definition of what qualifies as R&D for tax credits? I think more can be done to boost our economy for the future.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for the tremendous support she gave to science and innovation when she was Prime Minister. That is very much something we want to build on as we go forward. We are looking at all the taxes around R&D relief, which we want to encourage. There has been a certain amount of abuse, but we particularly want to encourage use of the relief among small companies, which can often be the most innovative, so I will take away her comments and maybe talk to her separately about what can be done better.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor has unveiled large numbers —or numbers that seem large—but let us be clear: that £3.3 billion a year is not even Osbornesque funding for the NHS. It is not enough to keep the NHS standing still. Will he level with us and tell us what percentage of the NHS budget that is?
Jeremy Hunt
I actually remember the Parliament from 2010 to 2015 because I was Health Secretary for quite a big chunk of it. I apologise to the hon. Lady, given the important role she plays in this House, for not being able to do that kind of maths in my head, but I can tell her that in that period, the NHS budget went up by 0.1% a year, and this is a lot more than that.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Chancellor will have noticed that Labour Members laughed when he talked about stability, growth and public services. Those who are watching our proceedings will have noticed, as will he, that when he was making his announcements about how we will ease the burden on the poorest and give opportunities to those who most need them, those Members were silenced. People around the country will give backing to his approach. We may have arguments about details, but the key point is to get stability and growth, and to defend public services.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend the Father of the House. He is right. What I have discovered in the short time that I have been doing this job is that although one might arrive thinking that decisions about money are about numbers and spreadsheets, they are actually about values. Today, I have tried to express our values not just as a Conservative party but as a country. That means protecting the most vulnerable.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
This cost-of-chaos Budget will cause untold pain for everyone, with soaring mortgages, unfair tax hikes and further cuts to our struggling public services. This Conservative Government have plunged the economy into chaos, and now they are forcing ordinary families to pay for their incompetence. For an average family, it will mean thousands of pounds in increased taxes and bills, yet their local services are being cut while their real-terms pay is decreasing. My question to the Chancellor is simple: who voted for this? It certainly was not the British people.
Jeremy Hunt
I think the hon. Lady must have written her speech before actually listening to what I said. She talked about soaring mortgages, but she might have heard the OBR confirm today that because of the decisions we have taken, inflation will be lower, and that means less pressure on interest rates and less pressure on mortgages. The truth is that the people of this country voted for a Conservative Government because they know that we will take the tough and difficult decisions necessary to deal with a global pandemic, a global energy crisis and a global economic crisis, and that is what we have done today.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Chancellor rightly talked about the importance of global headwinds—we have seen two 100-year events in just the last three years. I commend him on his autumn statement, which has risen to the challenge that he has set out. He said rightly how important growth is; we know that it is the only way to improve opportunity and social mobility in our country in the long term. He has rightly protected investment in skills, capital infrastructure and R&D, but can he say a little more about how he will ensure that such investment is spent wisely and for the maximum possible impact?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend—I always listen very carefully to what he says because of his enormous experience in economic posts in Government and in spending posts. The reason why growth matters is that it is not often something that can be delivered in one or two years—a long-term strategy is needed. I talked about Nigel Lawson’s big bang in 1986, but that actually took decades to come to fruition and turn London and the UK into one of the world’s great centres for financial services. Every Government have a duty to lay those foundations and make sure that, as far as possible, there is cross-party support for what they do.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am puzzled by the Chancellor’s position on his predecessor’s mini-Budget. He appeared to acknowledge its foolhardiness but then attempt to defend it. I agree with him about the importance of tackling inactivity, and we on the Work and Pensions Committee look forward to discussing that with the Secretary of State on Wednesday week. I am relieved that working-age benefits and pensions are to be uprated in line with inflation, and I welcome—at last—the uprating of the benefit cap, which, logically, should happen every year. Will he also uprate the local housing allowance, which has been frozen since the pandemic at a time when rents have surged?
Jeremy Hunt
I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the latter point. On the mini-Budget, let me be very clear that I agree with its priority of growth and with the energy price guarantee, which has given relief to thousands of families, but I do not agree with unfunded tax cuts.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
This is one of the most difficult circumstances in memory in which an autumn statement has been delivered, so I congratulate the Chancellor on a remarkably skilful statement. Of course, fiscal responsibility is incredibly important, but one of the risks that goes with it is that of worsening a recession, so it is particularly important that on small businesses, investment and innovation, he came up with a radical new agenda for growth. When he delivers his Budget in the spring—after, I hope, gas prices and financial markets have stabilised—will he reinforce that agenda for growth?
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend always speaks wisely on these issues. I think that if we are going to go to the British people as a party that can deliver a plan for our economy, they need to see that we have made progress in the growth agenda, and they need to see where this country is going to excel, not just in the next two years but in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. They will reward the party that demonstrates that it understands how to do that—that is what we do know.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
The Chancellor claimed in his statement that he was being fair and protecting the vulnerable. I think that those claims were false and that his measures simply entrench inequality. Freezing income tax bands hurts low earners much more than high earners, and the real-terms cuts to public services hit the poorest and the most vulnerable. He had choices. Why could he not tax income enjoyed from wealth at the same rate as income earned from work? Why could he not reform national insurance so that high earners and people of pensionable age pay a fair contribution? Why did he not address the inequities of the council tax system, whereby a Hartlepool homeowner whose property is valued at £150,000 pays more in council tax than a Westminster homeowner whose property is worth £8 million, and why oh why did he not insist that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does something about the £14.4 billion that it loses every year through avoidance and evasion? Does the Chancellor accept that his callous cuts and harsh hikes will do nothing to fix our unfair tax system?
Jeremy Hunt
I have enormous respect for the right hon. Lady, but I do not think that those comments really did her justice. These were £11 billion of spending increases for the NHS and schools, which will make an enormous difference to schools and hospitals in her constituency, as they will in mine. On many of her points, I have some agreement with what she said, and we have actually moved in her direction—on wealth taxes, for example. This is, I think, the biggest ever fall in the capital gains tax allowance. It is a very big change. With respect to high earners, we have had a big tax increase for anyone on the 45p rate—£1,000 a year for anyone on over £150,000—and we are publishing distributional analysis that shows the impact of all these decisions, which shows that the biggest gainers are people on low incomes.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on walking a tightrope very carefully. I think he has made a positive financial statement, but I ask him to look at energy in particular from the perspective of every family. Individual families need to reduce their own energy bills and energy usage. There is so much that can be done. I commend to him the 1922 Committee’s work looking at how individuals can do things such as putting a timer on their Economy 7 boiler and reducing the temperature of their hot water. There are things that families could do for themselves, and the Chancellor could of course require energy suppliers to do much more by going house to house to help people who are really struggling this winter.
Jeremy Hunt
As ever, my right hon. Friend speaks very wisely. Today’s statement was long, and I did not have time to go into the details, but my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will announce a plan very much along the lines that she describes. It is a kind of new contract with families up and down the country. We are giving £106 billion of support to bring down energy bills this year and next. We are helping people, but we are also saying, “We need you to also do things to help improve energy efficiency.” That is why the national plan to reduce energy efficiency by 15% is so important. We are asking people to help themselves by taking the kind of measures that she mentions, so that when we are not able to offer sustained support people’s energy bills are lower.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Goodness! Here is a surprise. I call Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
That was a bit of a surprise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you carried the House there.
This is really grim. The public finances are in a really difficult situation, and even more importantly the OBR figures show that disposable income for households will fall after what the Chancellor has done today by 7% over the next two years. Will he confirm that that is the biggest fall in our history? That means families not being able to afford things, and that is, in the end, at the doorstep of No. 10, is it not?
Jeremy Hunt
The first part of what the hon. Member said is broadly correct. There will be a very big fall—[Interruption.] Would Members like me to answer the question or not? There will be a big fall in disposable income, but the OBR says that the measures that I took today mitigate that, reducing the effect by around 25%. That is very important, but to say that somehow this has nothing to do with a global pandemic and a war in Ukraine—
Jeremy Hunt
Yes. The hon. Member said it was at the doorstep of No. 10. I think that is to ignore the reality staring him in the face.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the exceptionally skilful delivery and content of his statement. I point particularly to the work that he was just touching on in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) about energy efficiency. He has today set an interim target to reduce energy demand in this country by 15% by 2028. That is the first time that we have done that, as far as the Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, is aware. It plugs a gap in the energy security strategy, which did not address reducing demand. I urge him, in his discussions with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to ensure that when the work of the energy efficiency taskforce is designed, there is engagement with the industry that has to deliver the reduction—unfortunately, neither the Treasury nor his predecessors in BEIS have done that adequately in previous schemes—to ensure that the scheme will endure, and actually work and deliver reductions at a household level.
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend understands this extremely well, and he has done very good work with his Committee. This is a national ambition, which means that the Government and every family in the country need to work together to reduce our national energy bill by tens of billions of pounds, to meet our climate change commitments, and to reduce the average bill in this country at today’s prices by nearly £500. It is really worth doing, and we are putting our money where our mouth is with billions of pounds more investment.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Chancellor rightly acknowledged that inflationary pressure on the budgets of public services is severe, and has an impact on the delivery of key services. He announced an additional £1.2 billion for the budget of the Welsh Government. Will he explain whether that is real-terms increase to the budget? If not, how does he expect budgets in Wales to meet the rising cost of living?
Jeremy Hunt
Because of the way the Barnett consequentials work, this is a cash amount that the Welsh Government will receive, but if they do what the English Government are doing with schools and hospitals —[Interruption.] If they do what the United Kingdom Government are doing in England with schools and hospitals, there will be a real-terms increase in Welsh schools and hospitals.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a balanced and skilful statement prioritising fiscal stability. He will be aware that some of us believe that the Bank of England maintained monetary conditions that were too loose for too long, but that it would also be a mistake to maintain monetary conditions that are too tight for too long. Can he therefore confirm that the anti-inflationary measures that he has taken today will mean that the pressure to raise interest rates will be minimised, and that there is a much greater chance that they will fall earlier than would otherwise have been the case?
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on this issue, because every 1% increase in interest rates is about £850 more on the average mortgage, so it is hugely important to families up and down the country. The OBR has said that the measures that we have taken today will mean that inflation is lower than it would otherwise have been. That means that the Bank of England is under less pressure to increase interest rates, which for reasons that he knows are such a worry for so many families.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday to the Treasury Committee that the mini-Budget has damaged our reputation internationally. He told us:
“People have said, ‘We did not think the UK would do this.’”
Why does the Chancellor not accept that it is because his party has destroyed our economic credibility and crashed the economy that the British people are now having to pay, in tax rises and public service cuts, the £55 billion of consolidation that he is talking about?
Jeremy Hunt
I have been pretty straightforward about saying that there were mistakes in the mini-Budget, and within three weeks we reversed them. Long-term gilt yields, which are the thing that really drive the cost of borrowing for the country, are down to the levels they were at before the mini-Budget, and to try to say that all the problems we face now are a result of decisions that were reversed in three weeks does not stand any scrutiny at all.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend argued for sound money and sound foundations. Would he be good enough to explain how it is that High Speed 2 will continue beyond Birmingham at a verifiable cost of at least £40 billion, when every independent report on HS2 condemns the project and confirms that phase 2 will make rail services to all west coast destinations north of Birmingham much worse? I ask him to make a clear commitment to keep this matter under review at all costs; it is in the national interest.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is right that the increases in the budget for HS2 are disappointing, but a strong economy needs to have consistency of purpose, and that means saying we will make sure that we are a better connected country. The lack of those connections is one of the fundamental reasons for the differences in wealth between north and south, which we are so committed to addressing. There is a bigger issue about the way that we do infrastructure projects: it takes too long, and the budgets therefore get out of control. We are just not very good at it, and we have to sort it out.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I take the Chancellor back to the housing issue? Housing is often the canary in the mine when assessing how people are faring in difficult circumstances. Last year, there was a 500% increase in mortgage repossession orders and a 160% increase in repossession orders from private landlords. Will the Chancellor come back with a package of measures that will assist people in getting through this housing crisis? It could include the issue that was raised earlier with regard to benefit caps. Mayors across the country are also asking for rent control powers, and we may need a mortgage interest assistance package as we go through this period.
Jeremy Hunt
I listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says. Despite our political differences, I respect the fact that he is concentrating on a very difficult issue. Local housing allowance rates for 2023-24 will be maintained at the elevated rates agreed for 2020-21. I will continue, as the economic situation deteriorates, to monitor carefully the issues around mortgage repossessions. I have already had a number of discussions internally in the Treasury, and as necessary, I will come back to this House with further measures.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his statement. In particular, I welcome the fact that he listened to his own representations about the need for an NHS workforce plan. I also welcome the increase in money for social care, which is desperately needed. May I urge him to take a leaf out of his own book and start to develop a workforce plan for the social care sector as well, which is equally needed?
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in this House when it comes to the social care sector, and he campaigned very hard for it in government. He is absolutely right: we do need a long-term plan for the social care workforce as well, and I will do what I can to turn my attention to that when we have set one up for the NHS.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Two thirds of children living in poverty also live in working households. That is before the drop in income that is being projected, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised. By the end of this Parliament, will that figure be greater or lower than it is now?
Jeremy Hunt
I would hope it would be lower, but I point out that the needs of people in that situation have been at the front of our mind in making today’s decisions. Uprating the national living wage means up to £1,600 extra for people on low incomes. The extra £900 that people on means-tested benefits will receive next year will make a big difference, and the increase in the pension rate by inflation is £870, so we are very much thinking about those people.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome what the Chancellor just said about his focus on mortgages and avoiding repossessions. On the need not to send the wrong signal about defence expenditure, I note that he skilfully linked that to a future defence review. When would that defence review come to fruition, and in the meantime will he guarantee that there would be no real decrease in defence expenditure?
Jeremy Hunt
I would expect my right hon. Friend to look forensically at any comment that I make about defence. I was very clear in my words, first, that the Prime Minister and I recognise the need to increase defence spending, and secondly, that the update to the integrated review needs to happen before the spring Budget. This is not pushing something into the long grass; it is making sure we get the decisions right.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The £650 million of Barnett consequentials announced for Northern Ireland will go some way to plugging the gap that has been left by an inept Finance Minister in Northern Ireland. We welcome that; it only goes some way to plugging that gap, but it recognises that without Westminster firepower, Northern Ireland would be in a considerably worse-off place.
The energy payments are woefully inadequate for a lot of people in Northern Ireland. One thousand litres of oil in Northern Ireland costs over £900 today— £300 will not cut it. For the third time, could the Chancellor outline for us when those payments will actually be made to Northern Ireland? Secondly, with regard to the “next silicon valley” proposal, does he accept that unless the handbrake of the Northern Ireland protocol is replaced, Northern Ireland will not benefit from that proposal?
Jeremy Hunt
First, on the opportunity to be the world’s next silicon valley, I want Northern Ireland to be a central part of that. In fact, we have agreed to explore funding a trade and investment event in Northern Ireland, to attract more inward investment into the Province for that very reason. I am aware that when it comes to fuel poverty issues, it is a different situation in Northern Ireland. I have had a number of discussions with my officials, and I am aware that energy consumption patterns are slightly different. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details on that, and I am happy to engage with him separately.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his meticulous and positive statement, which will be very well received in the science and technology communities. When we invest in research and development, we lay down a path to high-paid jobs, discoveries that change people’s lives and export earnings. The commitment that he has made is the biggest increase in R&D funding in the history of this country. Will he work with the Business Secretary to develop a strategy through which businesses can invest alongside the commitment he has made today, so that we can get the most out of that commitment?
Jeremy Hunt
There has been no stronger backer of science and research and development than my right hon. Friend, and I will absolutely make that commitment. There are a lot of elements in the industrial strategy he put together that we can learn from and weave into what we do next. He is right: this cannot happen with Government money alone. We need to work in partnership with brilliant British innovators and make the most of the incredible opportunity we have.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Instead of shifting the cost on to local authorities and hard-pressed council tax payers, why did the Chancellor not look at the possibility of using the £10 billion that goes on buy to let, for example, to fund much-needed improvements in social care and other public policy areas?
Jeremy Hunt
We did not shift the burden of funding on to local authorities; it has always been a shared responsibility. As the right hon. Gentleman heard from my statement, we are putting £1 billion into social care next year and £1.7 billion the year after. Taken together, that £4.7 billion is the biggest ever increase in the social care budget. I recognise that there are big pressures and a need for reforms in that sector, but this is a very positive start.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for the announcement on schools funding, which, as he knows, is something that I raised with him as being crucial. Can he also confirm that, if current forecasts about economic recovery and inflation prove to be overly pessimistic, we will move more quickly than he has announced today towards delivering a lower-tax economy?
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is an immensely experienced colleague. She is right to point out that there is always inaccuracy in any forecast, and there is always variation from fiscal event to fiscal event, so we keep all those decisions under review in the round. I think it is still important to have forecasts—that is better than not to have them—but we keep all those decisions under review.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
May I take the Chancellor back to the issues of housing, which other hon. Members have raised? Raising the local housing allowance merely in line with inflation does not necessarily help many people on benefits living in the private rented sector, particularly in constituencies such as mine where, generally speaking, many of those people end up being exported away from the area in which they live. It is more important to give local authorities the power to introduce rent controls in areas of very high private sector rent. Excessive rent levels are the biggest problem that many people, particularly young people, face in their lives.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made an interesting and helpful statement on the issues of safety within all housing. His remarks mean that much more inspection will have to be done by local authorities. Will the Chancellor ensure that local authorities are sufficiently funded to increase the levels of public health inspection to provide a safe living environment for people in all housing situations?
Jeremy Hunt
These are very important issues. Obviously, the safety of properties in the private rented sector is extremely important. I am not a fan of rent controls, because I am worried that that would reduce the supply of housing to the private rented sector. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that we lifted the local housing allowance during the pandemic to help people and we are keeping it at that higher level.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
People will note the trademark calm and decency of my right hon. Friend today in his credible autumn statement. The current Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee agrees with his predecessor, who I am glad agrees with himself, in welcoming the independent verified workforce plan that is, of course, the rock upon which we will build a sustainable future NHS.
I welcome the additional social care funding of £7 billion over the next two years, which, as the Chancellor knows, was a recommendation of the Committee, and the £3.3-billion uplift in the NHS budget for the next three years. I ask him—he knows where I am going to go with this—to work with us to push his colleagues in the Department and in the NHS on the long-promised cancer plan. The sharp rise in cancer waits that we are seeing at the moment have a devastating impact on people’s lives, but they also have a domino effect that is understandably having an impact on care across the NHS.
Jeremy Hunt
I welcome my hon. Friend to his role as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I know that he will do a brilliant job and that he will hold me and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to account strongly and tenaciously on everything to do with cancer and public health. I welcome that, because they are very important areas.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
To come back to social care, in the Chancellor’s previous role as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, he will remember arguing for a £7-billion increase in social care funding. Will he confirm that today’s package is nothing like that? Will he further confirm that much of it is coming from council tax increases, which give most to the richest councils and take proportionately most from the poorest households? Finally, will not the rest of local government face real-terms cuts to essential services? This is austerity mark 2, with the prospect of financial collapse for many councils up and down the country.
Jeremy Hunt
I have to say that I think local councils are welcoming today’s announcement because the biggest item of expenditure that worries them the most is their social care budgets, and this is the biggest-ever increase in the social care budget. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has read the report into social care that the Health and Social Care Committee produced when I was the Chair—I sometimes worry whether people actually read the reports—and he is right to point to that £7-billion figure. That was made up of about £5 billion in core funding and £2 billion for the Dilnot reforms. Today, we are delivering nearly that £5 billion of funding and the Dilnot reforms will happen at a later stage, so it is not everything at once, but it is broadly consistent with what I recommended.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s correct focus on putting education and skills at the heart of his statement. I was one of many Conservative Members who wrote to ask him to protect the schools budget, and he has gone further than that with the additional £2 billion over each of the next two years. That is welcome, but can he confirm that it is his assessment and that of the Department for Education that that will allow schools to fund the increase in teaching pay that has been recommended and the increase in non-teaching pay that they will face as a result of a rising living wage?
Jeremy Hunt
Those are details—within the structures we have, we give schools a lot of autonomy as to how they spend their budgets—but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on those specific issues. Campaign organisations said that schools needed £2 billion a year, and this is £2.3 billion a year, so I think we have met people’s concerns.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Last year, the then Chancellor raised the universal credit work allowance for low-paid workers, describing it as a “tax cut”. Can the Chancellor confirm whether he has frozen the work allowance today?
Jeremy Hunt
What I can confirm is that people on universal credit will see an inflation uplift that will be worth about £600 to the average family; people on benefits will receive £900 of support; pensioners will receive £300; and disabled people will receive £150. There will also be £500 off the average fuel bill. We are thinking about those people front and centre.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on making capital transport projects a central pillar of the future growth strategy. Will he be reprioritising any of the schemes that are in development? He correctly mentioned East West Rail, which would be an excellent choice. As the new Chair of the Transport Committee, it would be useful to have some clarity on which projects he is prioritising. On his other transport announcement about the extension of vehicle excise duty to electric vehicles, will the revenue from that be hypothecated for the roads budget, as is VED on existing vehicles?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend has campaigned hard for East West Rail and I am happy to confirm that, as a result of the difficult decisions that we have taken today in the round, it will proceed. It will make an enormous difference to our country, because of the connectivity that it will provide between two of the greatest universities in the world. It is a very important step forward for the country. With regard to the extension of VED to electric cars, which we are doing at the point at which half of all cars sales in the UK will be of electric cars, it asks people who have electric cars for £165 a year. Given that we have spent £2.5 billion on electric car charging points, I do not think that that is an unreasonable request.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Chancellor said that he would be honest about the challenges we face, so it is frankly extraordinary that he could speak for almost an hour without once acknowledging the economic catastrophe of Brexit. According to the OBR, it will slash productivity by 4%; it has delivered a 15% drop in trade; there will be a 14% drop in investment; it will increase food prices by 6%; and it will deliver lower wages, workforce shortages and the highest inflation in the G7. When will he name the elephant in the room? When will he start to address that and reverse some of the damage that it is doing?
Jeremy Hunt
I do not deny for one second that Brexit will be a change in our economic model, but whether we make a success of it is up to us. This Government will make a success of it and make it a tremendous opportunity.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on this carefully crafted and balanced autumn statement, where he managed to fill the fiscal black hole without raising the headline rates of tax, as well as protecting education, the health service and pensioners. All the research institutes in my constituency will very much welcome the commitment to keep R&D funding going up to £20 billion a year. I look forward to grilling him on some of the details when he appears before the Treasury Committee.
My constituency is the life sciences capital of Europe, but it suffers acutely from a shortage of nurses and doctors. I have been working with medical groups to try to push for higher levels of training with up to 15,000 places a year for doctors, so I welcome the fact that the Chancellor agrees with himself and wants to introduce a long-term NHS workforce plan. Can he confirm whether one of its objectives will be to ultimately make the UK self-sufficient in the training of nurses and doctors?
Jeremy Hunt
Absolutely, because the NHS as it stands at the moment would fall over without the brilliant contribution made by doctors and nurses born or trained overseas. I think it is about 24% of doctors in the NHS at the moment. We always welcome international exchanges, but in the end a huge health organisation such as the NHS—the biggest health organisation in the world—should be training the number of doctors and nurses that it needs itself. With a 2 million shortage of doctors worldwide, there is no other alternative.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is funny that the same Tories, who are today congratulating the Chancellor, 55 days ago lined up to congratulate his predecessor on the disastrous mini-Budget of what he correctly described as the “English Government” —a sign of things to come. However, the question that is being asked by people in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Barra is: when exactly are the Government paying the off-grid fuel support for the likes of those with central heating oil? It is now mid-November. We need the dates, and we need this to happen.
Jeremy Hunt
We do, and we are working on that. We will make sure it is paid as quickly as possible.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement today. It is right, of course, that we focus on stabilising the economy and improving growth, while ensuring support is in place for the most vulnerable in our society. This statement has set out to achieve that, but there were two points of particular concern to my constituents in Broxtowe. One was the triple lock, so I was delighted that that remains. The other was investment in infrastructure and transport in the east midlands, and I did not hear anything about that. The east midlands has the lowest investment in transport infrastructure year on year. Could the Chancellor lay out how the east midlands will benefit from his statement today?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The detailed decisions about what we do with respect to infrastructure in the east midlands will follow, but I want to reassure him that we have not made big cuts in our capital budget. We have protected it at the very high levels it was increased to by a previous Conservative Government. As a result, we will be in a better position to support regions such as the east midlands than we would have been had we made the mistake of mortgaging our future by cutting our capital spend.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After crashing the economy and inflicting on my Slough constituents and others higher mortgages, higher rents and the highest inflation for over 40 years, the latest Prime Minister and his Chancellor have embarked, without any mandate, on austerity 2.0 and they have decided to inflict yet more painful tax rises. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor kept referring to “global factors”, so can he point to just one other advanced economy that is raising taxes at the same scale as us here in the UK?
Jeremy Hunt
Yes, the United States is raising taxes by $800 billion.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Chancellor, you have agreed to meet me and other Leicestershire colleagues to discuss the worrying situation that Leicestershire County Council has been facing for years when it comes to its financing. While I greatly welcome your autumn statement today—
Alberto Costa
While I greatly welcome his autumn statement, will the Chancellor tell the House today—and, indeed, those at Leicestershire County Council, who are listening to proceedings—how his autumn statement will help them with their finances?
Jeremy Hunt
I have talked to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions about the problems with Leicestershire County Council’s financial situation. What all councils say is that the biggest pressure on their budgets is adult social care, and I think today’s announcement will be welcomed by them for that reason. However, I am very aware of the particular issues in Leicestershire, and I am happy to keep engaging with him on them.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On the NHS point, will the Chancellor expand on whether the increase is in real terms? I spent 17 hours on a hard chair with my father in A&E last week, and I have heard a lot of talk about how the vulnerable are going to be defended by this Government. To follow on from the point about Leicestershire County Council, the vast majority of vulnerable people’s funding—such as vulnerable women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence—comes from local authorities, from the Home Office budget and from the Justice budget. Every single one of those budgets has been squeezed today, so will the Chancellor guarantee that those vulnerable people, unlike my father, will actually be looked after, and that there is not a single cutback to an already dreadful service that leaves criminals on our streets and vulnerable people in danger?
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Member speaks incredibly powerfully, and I hear every word she says—[Interruption.] I heard someone shouting, “12 years”. We have actually had the third fastest growth in the G7 over the last 12 years, and that means we are in a better position to fund public services than we would otherwise have been. I will take away what the hon. Member says, and I will write back to her.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and on the important points he has made about the global challenges we are facing, but also on how support will be provided to those who need it most. Can I ask him about capital budgets? There has been some concern in the infrastructure sector that projects may be halted, so I welcome the focus on infrastructure investment as a driver of economic growth and of social and environmental progress. Will he be supporting these plans with skills programmes and apprenticeship programmes to ensure that the sector will deliver them with efficiency?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend knows these issues extremely well, having been a Transport Minister. We need better transport infrastructure, and what we have said today makes that possible, but he is absolutely right that we also need to improve the skills in our economy. We have had a lot of change in our ambitions for skills, with I think a lot of very positive things such as the Augar review, but we need to make sure we deliver them, and that is why I have asked Sir Michael Barber to advise me and the Education Secretary as to what we need to do.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Today, the Chancellor had an opportunity, which he has missed, like his predecessor—the one before the last one, mind—to enact recommendations from the Transport Committee and to give Bradford a station. Instead, the Government have engaged in an exercise in rebranding, while short-changing the people of Bradford. Why does the Chancellor not just be honest with the people of Bradford, and call this what it actually is? This is not Northern Powerhouse Rail; this is the greatest ever train robbery of the north.
Jeremy Hunt
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that she should think about what we have done for her constituents in Bradford. When it comes to transport, we have protected the capital budgets that in the end will solve the problems she is talking about. We have also found £500 of support for the average household for their fuel bill next year. We have found more money for schools, hospitals and GP surgeries in Bradford. That will make a difference, and she should welcome that.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Can I say how good it is to see the Chancellor channelling his inner Nigel Lawson by referencing not only the big bang, but his attempt to get the next big bang to happen, particularly with supply-side reforms for five key STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths— sectors, plus the much-needed roll-out of the powers for the digital markets unit in the Competition and Markets Authority? May I urge him to provide us with dates as soon as possible for when these are going to take place, because many of them are overdue and much needed? Can I further press him that there is a further supply-side reform to do with open data, which could be at least as big as any of the others he has announced today and transformational across large swathes of the rest of our economy?
Jeremy Hunt
I always listen to my hon. Friend on matters such as supply-side reforms and, indeed, long-term competitiveness. I want to reassure him that, while it is a long-term aspiration to become the world’s next silicon valley, we want to put those foundations in place next year. That is why, in those five growth sectors, I said that we will review and decide on changes to all the EU regulations that affect our growth industries in the next calendar year to make sure that we put those foundations in place fast.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Federation of Small Businesses says that business confidence is at its lowest rate since the pandemic, and in the Chancellor’s oral statement today there was no mention of energy support for business. All the written statement says is that businesses can expect significantly lower support. I have businesses, including care homes, in North East Fife that are facing closure as a result. In the terms of reference, also published by the Government today, for the review, it says there is a very high bar. The Chancellor must have a fair idea of what that means. Can he share it with us and businesses?
Jeremy Hunt
We absolutely want to think about care homes and small businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and in mine, and we are spending roughly £18 billion on the support we are giving this winter. We are doing a lot as a Government, but we want people to have certainty and to know what the support will be next April. We need businesses to help themselves as much as we help them, which is why they need to play their part in important energy efficiency measures. Our intention is to announce that business support before Christmas.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
This Government’s commitment to Sizewell C and large-scale nuclear is welcome, and it was noted that Labour’s shadow Chancellor failed to mention nuclear. When will the launch of Great British Nuclear be announced, and will its scope include large-scale gigawatt nuclear at sites such as Wylfa in my constituency, as well as small modular reactors?
Jeremy Hunt
There is no more formidable advocate for big nuclear investment on Ynys Môn than my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I went on a family holiday to Ynys Môn this summer, she tried to persuade me to visit the potential site of a nuclear power station with my children. I apologise that I did not take her up on the offer, but it shows her commitment. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will be making an announcement soon on things such as the launch of Great British Nuclear—I hope before Christmas, but if not just afterwards—because we want to crack on with our nuclear programme.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
For the first time in decades women are leaving the workforce, largely to take up caring responsibilities for their families. In that context, it is astonishing that the Chancellor did not mention childcare once during his statement. Childcare is vital social and economic infrastructure. The status quo is holding back women, and holding back our economy. What will the Chancellor do about it?
Jeremy Hunt
I am very aware of the pressures and issues of childcare. The £4.7 billion increase in the social care budget will make a difference to people with caring responsibilities, with potentially another 200,000 packages, but I want to return to this issue and I take what the hon. Lady says very seriously.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I have huge sympathy for my right hon. Friend. We are facing severe financial challenges for the reasons he explained so well, but Members on both sides of the House are promising to spend billions and billions more pounds. I remind the House that it is the private sector, and hardworking people through their taxes, who pay for Government expenditure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising taxes on both risks stifling the growth and productivity that he and I both want, and that would counter the recession we are now in?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to make the case for a lightly taxed dynamic economy, and I would like to bring taxes down from their current level. We are faced with the necessity of doing something fast to restore sound money and bring inflation down from 11%, which is why we have made difficult decisions today. But yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no future for this country unless we get back on the path to being a lower taxed economy.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As we have seen, the Tory party might learn more from its mistakes if it wasn’t so busy denying them, and I congratulate the Chancellor on a wonderful, “not me, guv” performance. In the interests of candour, will he confirm that what he told the House today is that after 12 years in power, the Tory plan is to cut around £27 billion from public spending?
Jeremy Hunt
I confirm that what the hon. Gentleman said is wrong. The plans I announced today show that we are protecting public spending in real terms over the next five years.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I welcome the protection that he has announced for the most vulnerable, Government support for Sizewell C, the announcement of a devolution deal for Suffolk, the appointment of Sir Michael Barber to prepare a skills reform programme so that the many and not the few can participate in the proceeds of growth, and the Chancellor’s commitment to a step change in the UK’s efficiency programme. May I highlight the enormous potential that the Lowestoft port investment zone can play as a centre of excellence for low-carbon industry, and urge him to give full consideration to the proposal that will be forthcoming ahead of the March Budget?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for Lowestoft and the Lowestoft port investment zone. The process for deciding where the investment zones are will be decided by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to him.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Chancellor rightly spoke a lot about compassion. In that regard, will he write to Ofgem and direct it that the manifest injustice of higher standing charges for those with prepayment meters must be ended and a social tariff invoked? On unregulated fuel, businesses in my constituency are hanging on by their fingertips, and waiting until next year might be too late. Will he undertake to backdate any payment or benefit?
Jeremy Hunt
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the business support for companies this winter is happening. There is no waiting until Christmas; it is happening now and we have made that clear. We have said we will announce before Christmas the support that will come into place from next April. I am very aware of the issue of standing charges. I am concerned about it, and I will write back to the hon. Gentleman on that.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for the announcements on the national health service, and he said that we are committed to our new hospitals programme. May I also thank him for the fantastic work he did when he was Health Secretary to help transform Medway Hospital in my constituency? He visited Medway Hospital, and he knows that Medway and north Kent have some of the highest health inequalities in the country, and Medway had some of the areas hit hardest by covid. We urgently need a new hospital. We are all among equals here and we want a fair allocation of resources. How will those criteria be applied, because under any criteria, Medway urgently needs a new hospital?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend was an extraordinary advocate for Medway Hospital when I was Health Secretary. That is continuing, and rightly so. I will take away what he says. I am not sure about the exact situation with respect to a new hospital in Medway, but I will write back to him.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The statement proposes council tax increases to top up social care funding, but the Chancellor must be aware that in Salford, the 18th most deprived local authority, with a current list of 27,000 people accessing council tax reduction support, any increases would raise only nominal funds, and the pain would be felt by residents on a huge scale. How will Salford pay for its social care, and what support will the Chancellor provide to mitigate the impact on those who cannot afford council tax increases?
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady is right to raise those concerns. Flexibility on council tax is only part of the way we are funding the £4.7 billion increase in the social care budget. Part of it is coming from the delay in the Dilnot reforms, and part of it—£1 billion and then £1.7 billion—is coming from central Government coffers. We recognise those concerns. This package is designed in its entirety to give maximum possible support to the most vulnerable people, and I hope it will be welcomed in her constituency.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Last week I met residents of Moor Help in Long Lee, attended a coffee morning to speak with constituents in Silsden town hall, met Ilkley Good Neighbours, and had several constituency meetings in Keighley. All were asking me for the pensions triple lock to be protected, so I thank the Chancellor on their behalf. Will he confirm that by protecting pensioners with the triple lock, the Government will be providing the biggest ever cash increase to the state pension?
Jeremy Hunt
I absolutely confirm that, and it was the right thing to do. We are also giving lots of other help to pensioners, including £500 off their fuel bills on average across the country, and an extra payment of £300 for all pensioner households to help with cost of living pressures next year. That is on top of existing help such as the winter fuel payment.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The first round of austerity contributed to more than 300,000 excess deaths. The Government have made a political choice to impose austerity 2.0. Instead of increasing the benefit cap, will the Chancellor scrap the cap on benefits? If not, why not?
Jeremy Hunt
It is lovely to see the hon. Member back in the House. We are doing everything that we can to help people on benefits, including a £900 one-off payment next year to help with cost of living pressures, an average of £500 off their energy bills and, if they are working, the increase in the national living wage, which is worth up to £1,600. That will really help her constituents.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When the Chancellor was Health Secretary, he kindly visited Kettering General Hospital, which is the No. 1 local issue in the Kettering Constituency. He will understand the importance that local people attach to the promised £396 million redevelopment of the hospital. The first 10% of that investment is now under way. Will he confirm that the bulk of the investment was always going to be in the period from 2025 to 2030 under health infrastructure plan 2 funding, and that Kettering hospital remains in that programme?
Jeremy Hunt
It is not possible to be Health Secretary without visiting Kettering hospital and my hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for it. I remember the visit well, with how crowded the hospital was and why there is such a big need for a new hospital. We are committed to the new hospitals programme, and I will write to him with precise details about where Kettering stands in that process.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
For absolute clarity, is the Chancellor confirming today that Transport for the North’s preferred option for Northern Powerhouse Rail with a stop in Bradford is now scrapped under this Conservative Government?
Jeremy Hunt
I am confirming that core Northern Powerhouse Rail will go ahead and that we are protecting our capital budget so that we can make as many other worthwhile additions to our transport infrastructure as possible.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My constituents in Rugby and Bulkington will not enjoy the tough decisions that the Chancellor has had to make today, but they will understand the need for sound finances after the huge expenditure that the country has made on the pandemic and supporting people with their energy costs as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. They will also want to know that businesses will continue to invest to grow and to create jobs. Will he speak about the incentives that still exist for businesses to do exactly that?
Jeremy Hunt
I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise those issues. We are doing a lot of short-term things, including help with energy bills as well as business rates. As we move to a new business rates system, we are freezing the levels at which business rates can increase and introducing a 75% discount next year for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Fundamentally, as a Conservative Government, we know that we cannot flourish as an economy without flourishing small businesses, and we will back them to the hilt.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Chancellor mentioned innovation, and a modern steel industry is vital to our future prosperity, so will he earmark the £200 million originally contributed in good faith by steel producers and now returned to the UK Government from the EU research fund for coal and steel to set up a UK steel innovation fund to develop the steel technologies that we need to drive growth and work towards net zero?
Jeremy Hunt
I will happily look into that issue and write to the hon. Member. She will know that one of the growth industries that I identified was advanced manufacturing. There is much that we can do to ensure that the steel industry is competitive in this country, and we want it to have a bright future.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Nothing corrodes living standards like runaway inflation, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the priority that he has given to tackling inflation and bringing it down next year. However, until that moment comes, there is huge pressure on household incomes. I have been working closely with Citizens Advice West Berkshire, and its No. 1 ask was for means-tested benefits to be uprated in line with inflation, so I welcome that announcement as well as the unprecedented equivalent increase in the national living wage. Will he ensure that his Department and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy continue to work hand in glove with HMRC on that small number of rogue employers who try to avoid their statutory wage obligations?
Jeremy Hunt
That is a good question. I will happily write back to my hon. Friend with what we are doing and what we can do. I would like her to pass on my thanks to Citizens Advice West Berkshire for the incredibly important work that it is doing to support people through a difficult period.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a Budget of austerity 2.0, is it not? Of course, different decisions could have been made. The Chancellor could have decided to abolish the upper limit on national insurance, raising more than £30 billion and solving adult social care in one fell swoop along with the crisis in council funding. He chose not to do so but instead to burden poorer people and working people. On housing and energy specifically, he has said that he will freeze local housing allowance, which is a freeze at the 30th percentile from two or three years ago—it was last uplifted just at the beginning of the pandemic. Will he please review that decision along with how people living in blocks of flats who receive communal energy have received no support for their energy bills? They need that desperately to come through, and he has promised it before.
Jeremy Hunt
As I have explained, we increased local housing allowance at the start of the pandemic—significantly—and we are keeping it at that higher level. He talks about difficult decisions. I would say that there is one difficult decision on the table today: do we do what is necessary to tackle inflation? On the Government side of the House, the answer is yes.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the commitment in my right hon. Friend’s statement to the new hospital building programme. Given the statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that he would deal with the concrete cancer that means that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in my constituency has 3,000 props holding up its roof, will he reassure people in North West Norfolk that the Government will make the urgent decisions to build the new QEH?
Jeremy Hunt
I have visited the QEH and absolutely understand the concerns that my hon. Friend is talking about. I will write to him about what is happening, but we do commit today that we will protect the new hospital programme. We do want to spend very important money in our capital programme in the NHS.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My rural, economically fragile constituency has been battered by a Brexit that we did not vote for resulting in the loss of European markets for our abundant seafood and meat products. What we also have in abundance is wind and water, which lash in from the Atlantic; something that we have learned not just to live with but to harness and benefit from. Why on earth has the Chancellor decided to tax electricity generators at a 10% higher rate than oil and gas producers? If there is a 91% investment allowance for the oil and gas sector, what is the figure for the renewables sector?
Jeremy Hunt
I have had wonderful holidays in the hon. Member’s constituency and can attest to the high levels of wind and water there. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the country. The windfall tax rate on electricity generators is calculated to ensure that we tax only genuine windfall profits. It is reasonable to do that. Overall, these taxes will raise about £54 billion, and this year and next year we will spend more than £100 billion to support people with their energy bills. It will only kick in at £75 a unit, which is a generously high level.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend when he talks about the inflationary pressures coming from the aftershocks of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. We see that at the fuel pumps and, more significantly, our haulage and logistics sector sees it with the enormous level of taxation on diesel in particular driving inflation to get food and goods on to our shelves. As he prepares for the March Budget, will he look at the inflationary impact of fuel duty on top of the high cost of diesel and see whether we can reduce it?
Jeremy Hunt
I assure my hon. Friend that I will absolutely do that. We have a little time, and I know that fuel duty is an important issue to him and many other colleagues.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said he was going to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. With the Chancellor’s announcement this morning, Hull remains excluded from Northern Powerhouse Rail for the next 30 years, in stark contrast to the go-ahead on the Oxford to Cambridge line. Could the Chancellor just explain to me and my constituents why the last areas to see investment in infrastructure are the first areas to have it ruled when this Tory Government crash the economy?
Jeremy Hunt
As the hon. Lady knows, the economy has been growing faster than France, Germany, Italy and Japan over the last 12 years, so that is not a fair characterisation. What I am able to do, because of the difficult decisions we have taken today, is largely protect the capital budget, which means we can do more to improve infrastructure to Hull and other parts of England. That is the right thing to do. I would just say to her that if we did not take the difficult decisions we are taking today, we would never be able to improve our transport infrastructure. We do not want that, which is why we are taking difficult decisions that her party is not supporting.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his skilful and compassionate autumn statement. I welcome the additional funding of £1.2 billion for Wales. Can the Chancellor reassure vulnerable residents in my constituency that Government assistance with their very high energy bills will continue as long as it is needed, so we protect them to the very best of our ability?
Jeremy Hunt
That is absolutely what we want to do, and that is why today we are announcing that the energy price guarantee will continue, supporting my hon. Friend’s constituents in an average household by about £500 during the course of next year. Going forward, because these are multibillion pound programmes, we need people to work together with the Government to also improve their energy efficiency. The other thing the Business Secretary will announce shortly is a long-term energy independence and energy efficiency plan which, if we implement it, will bring down the average fuel bill by another £500.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
In his statement, the Chancellor said that because of difficult decisions in 2010, the Government could then go on to do several things. However, places like Gateshead are still living with the drastically detrimental consequences of those 2010 decisions. The decision to incrementally withdraw revenue support grant from councils means that my own local authority is £179 million per year worse off now than it was in 2010. Many local authorities with a low council tax base are in exactly the same boat. We are worried about austerity 2.0, but we are also very, very worried about the continuing consequences of austerity 2010. So, after 12 years, when will the Government do something about local government finance to prove to people in Gateshead that the words “levelling up” are not just empty rhetoric?
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say how important the levelling up programme is. The economic growth we have had since 2010 means we are able to invest in capital projects today. The levelling up round 2 fund will be protected and possibly increased from the £1.7 billion invested in levelling up round 1. We are absolutely committed to connecting areas like Gateshead into the national economy, which means that wealth spreads.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on how skilfully he has handled the toughest budget for 40 years, and thank him for listening to representations which I have made to him directly to protect pensioners and increase school funding for Southend schools. Can he confirm that as a result of restoring the triple lock, all 18,000 pensioners in Southend West will get not only continued help with their energy bills but the biggest cash increase ever in their pensions next April?
Jeremy Hunt
I can. My hon. Friend advocates formidably for pensioners and other constituents in Southend. The inflationary increase in the state pension is worth on average £860. There will also be a £300 payment to pensioners next year to help with cost of living pressures and for an average house a £500 reduction in their fuel bill at today’s prices. She can tell her constituents that that package shows a Conservative Government who care about our most vulnerable citizens.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chancellor rightly claimed that education is not just an economic mission but a moral mission, so can he explain to the House why he is still able to find £6.5 billion in tax cuts for the biggest banks over the next five years, but no money to expand free school meal provision, when 800,000 children living in poverty are not even entitled to a hot meal at school? Hungry children cannot learn. So much for his moral mission.
Jeremy Hunt
Where the hon. Lady and I agree is on the importance of education, and the importance of supporting children and lifting families out of poverty. Where we disagree is on the role of banks, which create enormous wealth for this country and actually help to fund our NHS and schools by the corporation taxes they pay.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on bringing forward an autumn statement that focuses on the long-term stability this country needs. My constituency has a large number of park home sites, which rely on communal accounts or individual liquid petroleum gas bottles. Will the Chancellor confirm that LPG used to heat park homes, not just standard-build homes, will be covered by the announcement of the doubling of the payment, and will he make sure that the payments to the constituents who need them most are efficient and delivered as quickly as possible?
Jeremy Hunt
I am very happy to confirm both those points. I have park homes in my own constituency.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
From his time as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, which we are hearing about plenty in this statement, the Chancellor knows that NHS England spends a ludicrous amount on detaining autistic people and people with learning disabilities in inappropriate and often substandard in-patient care. I know the Chancellor understands this.
Barbara Keeley
He is nodding. He himself said, during the Committee’s inquiry into this issue, that the level of community provision is totally inadequate. Will he listen to himself again and commit to looking into this issue with the Health and Social Care Secretary, so that we are no longer throwing money away on substandard care when autistic people and people with learning disabilities could be living happier lives in the community?
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady and I have talked about these issues many times and may I just say, across the political divide, that it has been a privilege to work with her on social care issues and to see the concern she has in public and in private about all these issues? I agree that it is a scandal that we have so many people detained in secure accommodation who could be in the community. I absolutely will work with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to see what can be done.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, with which I know my right hon. Friend is very familiar, is delaying returning chemotherapy services to the Alex—the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch—even though the pandemic is over. That means really sick cancer patients are having to travel to Kidderminster for their essential therapy. I strongly welcome the £3.3 billion investment he is providing today for the NHS, so can he confirm that there are really no financial or funding reasons for the trust not to return those services to Redditch, where they are so desperately needed?
Jeremy Hunt
Cancer patients in Redditch will have heard loud and clear that they have a formidable advocate in their MP. I will happily look into that specific issue, but the broader point is that the chief executive of NHS England says today that the funding we have found for the NHS is sufficient for it to deliver its core purposes, even despite the inflationary pressures. Of course, cancer services are core services.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Can I ask the Chancellor about his policy on public sector pay, because not much was said about that? Will he first of all look at the nonsensical position that the UK Government—not the English Government—have more than 200 separate pay bargaining units for civil service pay? That seems a nonsensical position. There are far too many civil servants having to utilise food banks to survive month to month. Can he tell us what pay increase those who work for UK Government Departments can expect for the coming year, or will they also pay the price for the mistakes of his predecessor?
Jeremy Hunt
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that families in the UK, including families in Scotland and in his own constituency, will get an enormous amount of help this year and next, including if they are on the lowest legal wage, the national living wage, with an increase in their income of up to £1,600. If they are on means-tested benefits, they will get an increase of £900 and if they are a pensioner they will get the triple lock increase of £870. I could go on. The autumn statement knits together as a statement designed to help people on low pay, including in the public sector.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Chancellor has rightly reminded us that the economic challenges we face are driven primarily by global events, especially Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that has necessitated the difficult and painful decisions that he has had to make. He emphasised the need to continue to invest in infrastructure. That is especially important in Aylesbury, where there is a massive amount of house building and we desperately need link roads to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality. Within the budgets that have been approved, will my right hon. Friend enable Buckinghamshire Council to have as much flexibility as possible to deliver those roads, which are so essential for our town’s sustainable growth?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Aylesbury. My basic view is that we should give as much flexibility as we can to local authorities to deliver local infrastructure projects, and significantly more than they currently have. I hope to come forward in the months ahead with ways to progress that. I will write to him on the specific issue of a link road.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Local authorities all over the country are at breaking point, with Conservative- run Kent and Hampshire County Councils warning this week that they face the very real prospect of bankruptcy. The challenge is especially acute at Wirral Council, which is grappling with a shortfall of nearly £50 million next year, driven in no small part by a drastic cut in central Government grant funding since 2010. Does the Chancellor accept that his proposals to allow local authorities to hike council tax risks forcing people in the most deprived communities, such as Birkenhead, to pay even more in return for ever-diminishing services? Will he commit to providing more direct financial assistance to local authorities so that they can continue to provide those services, which will be so essential in helping local towns such as Birkenhead?
Jeremy Hunt
Local authorities have requested this package, particularly the two-year delay in the Dilnot reforms. Although those reforms are very important, we will not implement them, but we will leave the funding that was set aside for them with local authorities. That will help his council and many other councils.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment today to the triple lock, public services in general and health and education specifically. On the proposal from the previous Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee for an NHS staffing plan—he may recall that I supported that—will my right hon. Friend work with the Health Secretary to find ways to encourage more home-grown doctors, nurses and nursing associates to be trained locally, not least in the new University of Gloucestershire health teaching campus? Thanks to the levelling-up fund, that will open before long close to our Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is a brilliant MP for Gloucester. I do not want to pre-empt what the independently verified workforce review will say, but we will need all the places that are now training doctors and nurses, including Gloucester, to train more in the future.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Is it higher mortgage rates, higher energy bills, higher food bills, higher fuel bills, public sector cuts, a recession or the boorach of Brexit that best represents the strength of the Union?
Jeremy Hunt
What represents the strength of the Union is £4 billion being spent to build the new frigates in Scotland and £4 billion being spent to support Scottish families with the cost of energy bills.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The scale of wage restraint resulting from today’s autumn statement will accelerate York’s housing crisis. What measures in the statement will secure a greater supply of affordable housing for local people, not investors, in my constituency?
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I am in constant discussion with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about the importance of housing policy creating new houses for people on low incomes. However, on wages overall, the £4.7 billion for the social care sector, for which she advocates, will make a significant difference in that area.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chancellor’s statement is forcing everybody to pay the price for the puncturing of the economy by his Conservative Government, and I put Brexit very much at the core of the problem. Everybody is paying except the big oil and gas companies, because there are still massive tax loopholes for companies drilling for new fossil fuels. Let me ask him this serious question: who is his statement benefiting—the renewable energy companies or the fossil fuel sector?
Jeremy Hunt
The renewable energy companies and people in the traditional energy sector are paying a windfall tax, and as a result, we can have more money for doctors, nurses and people in social care up and down the country. That means that we are investing in the NHS in a way that was not possible when we were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm how the living standards of UK households have been forecast to change between this year and next by the Office for Budget Responsibility? Does he think it is acceptable that real household average incomes are set to fall on his watch?
Jeremy Hunt
A fall in household incomes because of the international headwinds will be extremely challenging, and today’s statement is designed to address that. The OBR has said that we will help to mitigate the fall in living standards by the actions we are taking today.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
People watching the Chancellor’s statement will be very vexed by the fact that he seems to be pretending that the Tories’ disastrous mini-Budget and their race-to-the-bottom Brexit have absolutely nothing to do with the problems that people face. That is simply not the case. As we have heard, the OBR forecasts that real household disposable income will fall by more than 7% over the next two years. People are facing a very difficult time, so why is the Chancellor not taking the kind of action that the Scottish Government are to protect families in this difficult situation? Why is he not making the choice to introduce something like the Scottish child payment, which will make such a difference? And why are his political choices so focused on those who least need them?
Jeremy Hunt
My political choices are focused on helping Scottish schools and Scottish hospitals, with £1.5 billion more to support them. I think they need that money, so that is where we have a difference of opinion.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
A constituent who is an A&E doctor told me about an elderly lady who was admitted to hospital from a house that she could not afford to heat. She had a temperature of 26°C and died shortly after. I am pleased that the Chancellor has finally extended the windfall tax, but Labour has been calling for that for months. Does he accept that the delay has had very real consequences for people and that the Government should have taken up Labour’s stance far sooner?
Jeremy Hunt
I do not accept that for one second, because these are terrible tragedies on which we have acted very quickly, with support worth £62 billion this year to help families deal with fuel price increases and support next year that will save families £500 off their average bill at today’s prices. We are doing everything we possibly can, because we do not want to be a country where that kind of thing happens.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I recently did a 12-hour shift with west midlands ambulance service. Every paramedic I spoke to told me that the current crisis in response times was because of bed-blocking, which is caused by the problem in social care. Given that the Local Government Association is forecasting a shortfall of £3.4 billion next year and £4.5 billion the year after that just to stand still, does the Chancellor feel confident that he is improving the situation with today’s announcements? Will he clarify how much the average council tax payer is expected to put towards that?
Jeremy Hunt
It feels as though the hon. Lady might have written that question before she heard the statement and not changed it. We talked about a £4.7 billion increase in the social care budget, which is targeted at ending the bed-blocking that the paramedics she talked to were so worried about. That is the biggest increase in social care funding in history. As I said, sadly, we were not able to do that when we were in coalition with her party.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor not have a responsibility to set out all major tax cuts? He seems to have slipped out a tax cut for the banks. Will he confirm that he is cutting the bank surcharge from 8% to 3%?
Jeremy Hunt
We are reducing the bank surcharge because we are increasing corporation tax from 19% to 25%, so banks are contributing to our having more money for the NHS and schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Where in the Chancellor’s statement is support for low-paid freelance and self-employed people, particularly those in the arts and creative sectors? Do not difficult times call for innovative solutions, such as the basic income guarantee for artists that is currently being piloted by the Republic of Ireland—which, incidentally, is a small independent member of the European Union?
Jeremy Hunt
We have announced a lot of measures to help people on low incomes. Anyone in receipt of means- tested benefits will receive £900 to help them with the cost of living, along with the inflation-linked uplift in universal credit, which is about £600, and about £500 to help them with their heating costs next year, at today’s prices. So there is a lot of help. However, if the hon. Gentleman is saying we should do more to support the creative industries which are so important to this country, I absolutely agree. I used to be the Culture Secretary, and I will do everything I can as Chancellor.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Four million children live in poverty in our country: that is one in three kids. Today the Chancellor could have tackled that. He could have extended free school meals to all primary schoolchildren, guaranteeing that they would get a decent meal every day. That would cost £1 billion a day, which could be paid three times over by closing the non-dom tax loophole, but the Chancellor did not extend free school meals or close that loophole. He talked about tough choices, so let me ask him this: was it a tough choice to protect this tax-dodging loophole and deny meals to kids living in poverty?
Jeremy Hunt
It was a tough choice to increase taxes by £25 billion, largely for the well-off, so that we could find more money for schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Far the best way to take people out of poverty is to pay them a decent wage so that they never get into poverty. I see that the Chancellor is nodding. Why has the nodding Chancellor announced today that the minimum wage will fall behind the cost of living? The Tories’ pretendy-kiddy-on living wage is even more pretendy-kiddy-on than it was before—a real-terms pay cut for the 2 million lowest-paid earners in the United Kingdom. What assessment, if any, has the Chancellor made of how long he expects it to be before every single worker in the United Kingdom has a legally guaranteed right to that most basic of employment rights, a decent wage that is enough to live on?
Jeremy Hunt
We may have political disagreements on the Union, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have made enormous progress with our national living wage. Today’s announcement means that for someone working full time it will go up by £1,600, which will help a great many of his constituents—and that is before all the other help that we are giving with heating costs—fuel costs—for people on means-tested benefits. So I think we are doing a lot, and we will continue to look at whether we can do more.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Today, in response to the Chancellor’s statement, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association said:
“We have been clear that council tax has never been the solution to meeting the long-term pressures facing services—particularly high-demand services like adult social care, child protection and homelessness prevention. It also raises different amounts of money in different parts of the country unrelated to need and adds to the financial burden facing households.”
Does the Chancellor agree with that, and will he commit himself to working on a fair funding formula for local authorities, including police and fire services, which we have heard little about today?
Jeremy Hunt
We always keep our funding formula under review, but I am absolutely certain that the person whom the hon. Lady has quoted will have welcomed the fact that there was a £4.7 billion increase in the money for social care, which is the biggest financial pressure for local authorities.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Thanks to recent Conservative chaos, people are now facing both higher taxes and underfunded local services. More than 150,000 people across Devon are currently on an NHS waiting list. For example, Ann Newbury from Honiton had to wait more than three years for her operation. Can the Chancellor tell me that the Government will recruit enough new NHS staff to ensure that people in Devon will not have to wait so long for operations?
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman may have heard me say that we are going to have an independently verified long-term workforce plan to ensure that we are training enough doctors and nurses in Devon and, indeed, all over the country, and I think it is incredibly important for us to do that.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Poverty is a political choice, and the Chancellor had the opportunity to take millions of children out of poverty with his Budget today, including children in my constituency. That has not happened, and the increase in benefits will not happen until April next year. Can the Chancellor tell the House what families are going to do when they are talking about heating or eating this winter?
Jeremy Hunt
This year we have supported the poorest families with £1,200 to deal with an exceptional increase in the cost of living. We have the household support fund, which we are giving to councils so that they can help to ensure that people do not fall between the cracks, and there is money for the NHS and care system, which is also targeted at the most vulnerable and people living in poverty.
We are doing a great many things today. There is always more that we can consider, but strong public services need a strong economy, and that is what you get with the Conservatives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And the prize for patience and perseverance goes—as so often—to Margaret Ferrier.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement, and for remaining in the Chamber to answer all the Members’ questions—especially the last question!
I wrote to the Chancellor on behalf of my constituents about the triple lock, and I thank him for listening to their pleas, but a decade of benefit cuts has meant that families are struggling financially. Will the Chancellor consider allowing families to access more of their benefit entitlement in the face of the cost of living crisis, and will he reduce the maximum amount that can be deducted from universal credit for debt repayments at least to 15% of the standard allowance?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her patience in waiting all this time to ask her question. The issues that she has raised are going to be looked at by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the review that he is conducting for the Prime Minister on the increase in the number of economically inactive adults and what we can do to improve incentives, but today we have announced—exceptionally—an increase in the benefit cap to ensure that the families who depend most on the benefits system are given all the extra help that we are promising today.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Chancellor for his statement, and I thank everyone who, for three hours and five minutes, has held him to account at the Dispatch Box.
Business of the House
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 21 November will include the following:
Monday 21 November—Debate on the autumn statement and consideration of resolutions (day 1).
Tuesday 22 November—Conclusion of the debate on the autumn statement and consideration of resolutions.
Wednesday 23 November—Remaining stages of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (day 1).
Thursday 24 November—A general debate on the UN international day of persons with disabilities, followed by a general debate on the independent review of children’s social care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 November—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 November includes:
Monday 28 November—Remaining stages of the Levelling- up and Regeneration Bill (day 2).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Leader of the House, Thangam Debbonaire.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. As I am supporting the Ask Her To Stand campaign this week, I thought I would dress in the appropriate colours.
It appears that the Government have simply given up listening to Parliament. On Tuesday, Labour gave them the opportunity to start putting right their crashing of the economy, which hiked mortgages and rents, but they did not show up and we won. One would not think that they still had a working of majority of 69. Is the Prime Minister’s leadership really so weak that he that he cannot carry his own MPs on a vote?
Labour called for, and Parliament voted for, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor to waive from their severance pay the average monthly £500 mortgage increase that families now face as a result of the Tory economic crash; yet Tory MPs backed their mates getting £35,000 over working people who have been left to pay for the mistakes that they made—a reward for just days in post in which they caused economic meltdown. Can the Leader of the House say with a straight face that they deserve this reward from taxpayers?
Even under their minority Government in 2018, the Government showed up to defeat censure motions. May I remind the Leader of the House that, by convention, censure motions results in MPs’ losing salaries or ministerial jobs? Governments have even fallen. The Government cannot just pick and choose which votes they will respect and which they will ignore, so will they uphold the will of this House? Will the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) give back from their ministerial severance the £500 average mortgage increase that they caused? The new Prime Minister said he would lead a Government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, so why is he willing to break long-standing parliamentary precedent in his first few weeks? Does the Leader of the House agree that the Prime Minister really needs to hurry up with appointing an ethics adviser? Will she give us a timeframe?
We agree that it is important that Members can hold Ministers to account in this place first, yet the Government briefed out almost every single part of today’s statement to the press. That is discourteous to Members and to our constituents, on whose behalf we want to put important questions to the Chancellor. It is not the first time, and it seems to be part of a wider culture of disrespect to Parliament. Has the Leader of the House spoken to Ministers about this issue, as she said she would? If she has, clearly she was not heard or was ignored, so will she remind her colleagues that major policy statements should be made by Ministers in this House first, not briefed to the media?
Labour’s green prosperity plan would build industry, create jobs, grow the economy and tackle climate change. Our national wealth fund would give the British public a stake in energy and climate investments. We would insulate millions of cold homes, and invest in onshore and offshore wind, tidal and solar. We would make fairer choices on tax, including by scrapping the non-dom tax status, taxing private schools, and making oil and gas companies pay their fair share, and we have a proper procurement plan to ensure we are buying, selling and making more in Britain. Those are just some of Labour’s serious plans for fairer, sustainable, green economic growth.
Where is the Tory plan? Today, non-doms have just kept their tax break. For working people, bills are up, wages are down, and they have just had a massive tax hike. The Chancellor told us that his autumn statement will help Britain face into the storm. Does he not get it? This Government are the storm. They have been the dreadful soaking rain, the howling wind blowing the roofs of, and the puddles drenching us with muddy, cold water with every passing bus—if one ever arrives—for 12 long years. This is a Tory crisis made in Downing Street. They crashed the economy; they hiked mortgages and rents; and they have presided over rising prices, falling wages and rising taxes. This is on them. The British people must be given the opportunity to elect a Labour Government, who would make fair choices and have an actual plan to get our economy firing on all cylinders—and it cannot come soon enough.
Penny Mordaunt
May I congratulate the men’s cricket team on their win at the T20, and wish—as I am sure the shadow Leader of the House would want to—England and Wales good luck in their first matches in the World cup?
I compliment the hon. Lady on her suffragette ensemble today, although given what has happened this week, I would caution her against wearing it in the Scottish Parliament.
On a serious note, we had an urgent question earlier this week on the situation in Iran, but may I place on record my concern? My thoughts are with the people of Iran, particularly in the wake of the decision taken by the Iranian Parliament this week. Thank you for allowing me to say that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s questions. I am keen that all news is heard by this House first, and will continue to make those representations. She will know that it is really important that embargoes are not broken on events such as the financial statement. I will emphasise that to my colleagues.
The hon. Lady will know that the decision on the appointment of an ethics adviser is with the Prime Minister, and I know he is focusing on it. She will also know that the Prime Minister very much wants me to concentrate on such matters, particularly in this House. We have had some good discussions about how we might join up actions that this House, our respective political parties and the Government are taking to give ourselves the best chance of creating the best possible culture in this place.
We have just heard from the Chancellor. The shadow Leader of the House, like me, was here for much of the statement, but she clearly missed the news that the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the chief reason we are facing these issues is the global situation, and in particular Russia’s illegal, economic war that is levelled at every household, every business, and every school and hospital in this country. We have set out the fact that we are strengthening the public finances, bringing down inflation, protecting jobs, investing in nuclear power, and putting in place the biggest programme of capital investment in 40 years. There is £1.5 billion more for Scotland, £1.2 billion more for Wales and £600 million more for Northern Ireland. We are protecting standards in schools, cutting NHS waiting times and funding social care. We have committed to the energy bill cap, and to supporting the most vulnerable in our community with regard to pensions, benefits and the national living wage.
In stark contrast, although the hon. Lady talked about 12 years of failure, it is Labour that has failed: it is failing in opposition; it is failing in Scotland; it is failing the people of Wales; it is failing to form a plan, as we heard from the shadow Chancellor today; and it is failing to free itself from its union paymasters, because it refuses to back our legislation on minimum standards. Every single time Labour is in government, it leaves the country in a worse state than when it inherited it. The reverse is true of my party. On this side of the House, we have a clear plan. On the other side of the House, there is no plan.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am extremely concerned to be advised that Serco—the agency responsible for seeking asylum accommodation around the country —is not complying with reasonable requests from Northamptonshire police to provide biometric data and known offending history from asylum seekers’ country of origin. Such individuals have no footprints on the police national computer, so Northamptonshire police are reliant solely on information provided by Serco. Despite several requests, Northamptonshire police have been informed that Serco is “too busy” to provide such information. The Leader of the House will be aware that the failings of such information and data transfer could have catastrophic consequences. May I urge her in the strongest possible terms to ensure that we have an urgent statement from the Home Office clarifying that Northamptonshire police will receive full biometric profiles, together with a comprehensive breakdown of any known offending behaviour in their country of origin, before any asylum seekers set foot in Northamptonshire?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly serious matter. It is not my area of expertise, but I cannot imagine that the situation he describes is compatible with Serco’s duty of care, nor its contractual obligations. He has clearly raised the issue with the Department and had no satisfaction, so I will write on his behalf and ask that there is a meeting between him and the relevant official in the Department. I will also suggest that Ministers hold a surgery for colleagues who may face similar situations.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s comments about the appalling decisions of the Iranian Parliament.
I could raise the financial statement, but so much of it was trailed beforehand that it feels like old news, so I will leave it until next week’s debates—except to wonder why extra resources need to go towards cracking down on vanishingly small amounts of benefit fraud but not on rampant tax evasion.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about the influence on our politics of opaquely funded think-tanks. That was timely, because an audit published today by openDemocracy and Who Funds You? shows that some of those think-tanks have raised more than £14 million between them in just two years, from donors whose identity is a complete mystery to us. That is important, because these think-tanks appear willy-nilly across media outlets such as the BBC and have had lots of ministerial meetings since 2012. Their policies have helped to inspire disastrous Government experiments such as the former Prime Minister’s mini-Budget. I am confident that the Leader of the House joins me in believing that it is only right for the public to know exactly who funds organisations that seem to wield such power in our democratic systems, so she will applaud the fact that I have written to the Prime Minister today to ask him again for an urgent meeting to discuss his position.
I must mention the Leader of the Opposition’s successful recent mini-break in Scotland—successful for the SNP’s polling figures, that is. Not only did he continue to deny democracy by telling the people of Scotland that on his watch they would never get a chance to decide their future for themselves, but he continued to deny reality by suggesting that he and his party can confound the predictions of almost every economist and trade expert and somehow make the deeply unpopular catastrophe of Brexit work. He is welcome back any time.
Lastly, the all-party parliamentary group on the environment enjoyed a helpful discussion yesterday with Canada’s high commissioner about the next COP15 on biodiversity, which is to be hosted in Montreal in December under China’s presidency. There is a bit of a fear that COP15 is being a little overshadowed by its better-known cousin COP27. That is a real problem, because it is vital that COP15 goes ahead and that major commitments are made. Will the Leader provide a debate on it in Government time to highlight its crucial messages?
Penny Mordaunt
I look forward—although I am sorry we have to wait until next week for it—to the hon. Lady’s welcome for the additional £1.5 billion in funding that was announced today. I am sorry that she did not take the opportunity to welcome the next batch of Type 26 frigates, which will secure jobs at Rosyth. I cannot imagine why the SNP does not want to talk about shipbuilding.
This week, we heard from Professor Keith Hartley, a defence expert, who said that warship construction would grind to a halt and thousands of jobs would be lost if Scotland were to leave the UK. He also warned that it was unlikely that an independent Scotland would have a particularly large navy. Based on the SNP’s performance at procuring ferries, I think he is probably right. I have often spoken about the SNP’s reality gap: the chasm between what SNP Members continually talk about and the concerns of the Scottish people. The Auditor General for Scotland has now pointed to an “implementation gap”: the abyss between the SNP’s rhetoric and the reality of its delivery on the ground.
I have been suggesting a bit of homework for the hon. Lady every week. The homework I am setting her today for the debate on Monday is a question to think about: if the SNP is so concerned about balancing the books and the budget of the Scottish Government, why does it not drop the constitution budget, drop the plans for a second referendum and focus on the NHS instead?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before we move on, I must say to the SNP spokesman that I did not interrupt her because I do not like to interrupt the flow of this important item of business, but it really ought to be about asking a question concerning next week’s business. It is fascinating to know the hon. Lady’s views on the Leader of the Opposition, but they do not really have a lot to do with next week’s business here in the House of Commons. I am sure that in future she will find a way of asking questions.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Historic gas lamp street lights are very precious to many people in Westminster. I have been working closely with the London Gasketeers—a brilliant campaign to save the gas lights—and with Conservative councillors. The Conservative administration before May stopped the plan to replace the gas lights; sadly, the new Labour administration has reintroduced the plan and is now consulting on it. The consultation ends on Sunday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we do all we can to protect the historic fabric of central London and encourage people to take part in the consultation and send a clear message: “Keep our gas lamps”?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Lady means that she would like to ask the Leader of the House for a debate as part of next week’s business. This is business questions, not “Opinion Time”. Would the hon. Lady like to ask a business question?
Nickie Aiken
I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether we can send a clear message by having a debate in this House about the importance of protecting the historic fabric of central London and the rest of the United Kingdom, and of protecting our precious gas lamp street lights.
Penny Mordaunt
I am pleased to compliment you on maintaining the proper procedures of the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is quite right that we maintain our important heritage, which is not only cherished by residents but a draw for visitors to central London. It is also nice to talk about gaslighting in its original context, as opposed to the more modern meaning that has become the fashion in this Chamber. I commend my hon. Friend and her councillors on the campaign and wish them luck with it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, and for announcing the Backbench Business for Thursday 24 November. I also thank her for our very pleasant meeting yesterday afternoon, and I thank her member of staff, who I understand hails from Consett, for the treat of a Black Bullet, which are not readily available in this part of the country. It is an import from home that he brought down.
In the aftermath of the autumn statement, can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of Government policy on local government finance? My borough of Gateshead, which prides itself on the development of sport over decades, now faces a situation where, having had almost £200 million cut from its budget in real terms over 10 years, it is now looking for a further £55 million-worth of cuts in the next three years. There is a real possibility of mothballing Gateshead International stadium and closing two of our swimming pools and possibly even our major leisure centre. This is important to people not just in Gateshead but across the whole north-east of England. Can we have a debate in Government time about the impact of Government policy on local government finance?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s gratitude to Kieran, but he will have caused envy among other visitors to my office who did not get confectionery.
I completely understand the importance of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will make use of the debates on the autumn statement, and there is also Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions on 21 November. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill comes back next week, too, so there will be plenty of Chamber time for him to raise these important issues.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
For too long, residents of villages such as Newton and Blackwell in my constituency have had to live under the cloud of HS2 safeguarding, which is blocking investment and blighting communities. It is about time we moved on. With the planned upgrade to the midland main line, there is no good reason to allow HS2 Ltd to block levelling-up projects along what was the Chesterfield spur. Can we please have a debate in Government time on how we can crack on and let these communities get on with their lives, now they are rid of this stupid project?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on this, and what he has said will have been heard by Ministers. There is Transport questions next Thursday, as well as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill coming back to the Floor of the House next week. I will pass on his concerns to the Minister.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
This week I met the families and loved ones of prisoners held under the imprisonment for public protection sentence, The Government abolished these sentences in 2012, but not retrospectively. As of September 2022, 2,890 people are still serving an IPP. Seventy-four prisoners have committed suicide, including Donna Mooney’s brother Tommy Nicol, who committed suicide in September 2015. He described his sentence as psychological torture. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss this most important issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important point, and I express my sympathies to Donna and her family for what has happened. I am happy to write on the hon. Lady’s behalf to both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to raise her concern. I encourage her to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Over many years, there have been discussions between the excellent doctor’s surgery in Hanmer in my Clwyd South constituency and the Betsi Cadwaladr University health board about building appropriate new surgery premises. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate an opportunity to discuss this in the House, and will she join me in urging the health board and the Welsh Government to expedite these discussions so that the Hanmer surgery can meet the ever-increasing local patient demand?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Clearly, the NHS and healthcare is under tremendous pressure in all parts of the UK, but while one in 20 people in England are waiting over a year for treatment, it is one in four in Wales. I know that primary care and the excellent services he has described are critical for diagnostics and prevention to tackle that issue. He has raised the issue today on the Floor of the House, and I know he is campaigning hard about it. He can gather the support of Ministers by raising it at parliamentary questions on 6 December and, in the meantime, I will ask the Department what more it can do to encourage the Welsh Government and local stake- holders to bring forward the new services his constituents need.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Tomorrow, I will be meeting the Scottish Showmen’s Guild in Glasgow. The guild has raised with me its concerns about the rising costs of electricity and gas for both site tenants and landlords, for which they receive no financial assistance or grants. Will the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to give a statement to the House and ask him to meet me to discuss energy support for showpeople?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue. The next business questions will be on 29 November, and I know that the hon. Lady will want to raise that issue there, but I will also alert the Department to her concerns.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in Government time about making sure the NHS is winter ready? Long ambulance queues and handover times have plagued my local hospital, even in summer months, which is why I and colleagues have campaigned so hard for a new ambulance handover unit. That unit arrived last week and is already easing pressure on our busy A&E and on our ambulances. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the East of England Ambulance Service and Southend University Hospital on these new lifesaving initiatives?
Penny Mordaunt
I am happy to congratulate the East of England Ambulance Service and Southend University Hospital on this achievement, and my hon. Friend, who I know encouraged it. She has campaigned for the hospital and she has also abseiled down it to raise money for the cancer ward, and I congratulate her on all she has achieved. I hope that this new initiative will be welcomed by her local constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure the hon. Lady meant to ask for a debate on this issue. I call Ellie Reeves.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Gabriel Stoyanov was stabbed to death in Lewisham two weeks ago. He was just 21 years old. I knew Gabriel and I knew his mum’s hopes and dreams for his future—a future that has now been senselessly taken away from him. Will the Home Secretary make a statement about tackling the scourge of knife crime and youth violence?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this tragic incident. I am sure that all Members of the House will want to send their condolences, thoughts and prayers to Gabriel’s family. The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes the issue very seriously. She is encouraging the Mayor of London to do further things. We have introduced new conditions on knife crime, brought back stop and search measures and increased sentences, but there is clearly more to do. Every community needs to have peace of mind that their young people can go out without fear, and I will certainly pass on the sentiments that she has expressed today to the Home Secretary.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Leader of the House rightly celebrated the men’s T20 cricket world cup win on Remembrance Sunday. Will she also join me in celebrating the great performances of our women’s rugby team, the Red Roses, who narrowly lost to New Zealand on Saturday. Will my right hon. Friend give time for a debate on women’s world cup rugby in the UK in 2025 and the strong case for Gloucester Rugby’s Kingsholm Stadium to be a major host venue? She may also be interested to know that there were no less than four players from Gloucester-Hartpury in the Red Roses team, including international women’s rugby player of the year, Zoe Aldcroft.
Penny Mordaunt
That is a textbook question. I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the England women’s rugby team, who did an incredible job, and only narrowly missed out. I thank him for the work that he is doing to promote this sport and to ensure that his constituents get the credit they deserve for the successes. He will know that Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions will be on 1 December, and I encourage him to take part.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
At next week’s debate on the autumn statement, can the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made by the Government, supporting, committing to and reaffirming their commitment to the hydrogen strategy? I notice that the strategy was glaringly absent from the autumn statement, but I am sure that that was an omission and not intentional. I just hope that the commitment is reaffirmed.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I can make a statement now that the Government are committed to the hydrogen strategy, which was published last year. Since its publication, we have doubled our ambitions for 2030. We have also announced the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund. I hope that that gives him reassurance, but I encourage him to raise the matter at the next questions.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Rotary club of Ilkeston is celebrating its centenary this coming weekend. Whether it is the fairs at Ilkeston Community Hospital or the classic car rally on the marketplace, these events and many others would not be the same without the burgers cooked by our rotarians locally. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Ilkeston Rotary club for all its charitable work, and for raising a huge amount of money for good causes, both locally and internationally, and will he wish it a happy 100th birthday? Can we have a debate in Government time on the contributions that Rotary clubs across the UK make to our communities?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Whether it is cooking burgers or eradicating polio, we have a huge amount to thank rotarians across the UK for. I certainly join her in congratulating her local Rotary club on meeting its centenary event. I hope that its members will celebrate appropriately, and I thank them for all they have done to support her local community.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Barnsley has the fourth highest level of tooth decay in the country, and 98% of dentistry practices across Yorkshire are not able to accept new patients. Can we have a statement on the Government’s strategy to improve dental health?
Penny Mordaunt
At the start of this year, we released some new funding to assist those areas that were not able to provide all of the hon. Lady’s constituents with access to dental care. Since that money was released, there has been some more flexibility in commissioning, which will help local commissioners to commission those services. I know as well that we have a catch-up job from the covid pandemic to get through. I encourage her to raise this matter at Health and Social Care questions, but I shall also raise it on her behalf with the Department.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Rugby’s Hospital of St Cross is highly valued by residents, who are keen to see it provide more services, especially in A&E. We are looking forward to welcoming the Secretary of State soon on a visit that was promised by his predecessor. One of the hospital success stories is the role played by the Friends of St Cross charity. Long-service badges have just been awarded to 90 volunteers for completing 10 years’ service, 35 of whom are still volunteering. With a collective 500 years’ service between them, can we have a debate on the very valuable contribution of volunteers within the NHS?
Penny Mordaunt
I put on record my thanks to all of my hon. Friend’s constituents who are volunteering for the friends organisation. This is a service that not only is very welcome but can help improve patient outcomes, hospital visiting and so forth. Ten years of service is a tremendous achievement. I congratulate them all and my hon. Friend on ensuring that the Secretary of State will visit his constituency. I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Many people are being left with no choice but to suffer against their wishes towards the end of their lives. Office of Health Economics figures show that every year 6,400 terminally ill patients in hospices suffer horrendous deaths. Many of my constituents have told me they want to see a fair and free debate on assisted dying. In nearly three years, the issue has only been debated once. Will the Leader of the House make time in Government time for a debate on assisted dying?
Penny Mordaunt
These matters have always been a free vote. I know over the last few years the House has had several large debates on this issue, including in Westminster Hall. I know that many all-party parliamentary groups in the House are looking at the question from all sides. I encourage the hon. Lady to apply to the Backbench Business Committee if she has support from across the House to revisit this issue.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Today is Social Enterprise Day. Social enterprises play a vital role in creating local jobs and solving local social and economic problems. For example, Parracombe Community Trust in my constituency has raised nearly £145,000 in community shares to transform an old public toilet into a bustling community shop and café, helping to foster renewed civic pride. It is also developing affordable housing via a community land trust for local people. Might my right hon. Friend update the House, and maybe even find time for a debate, on how we plan to support social enterprises as they work to bring community assets back into the hands of local people?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to congratulate Parracombe Community Trust on its terrific job creating that community facility. She will know that we recognise the importance of social enterprise. We have made finance available to support it through dormant asset funding, and there is also assistance from the £150 million community ownership fund. I encourage her to apply for a debate on the matter.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have an urgent debate on houses in multiple occupation and their regulation? Unscrupulous companies are targeting communities, buying up home after home on the same street and converting those homes to tiny units not fit for vulnerable adults to live in. Local authorities then have very limited powers or influence over them, and too often we see a consequent rise in antisocial behaviour and other crimes. The legislation is truly a mess. Overnight, people who have felt safe on their streets and lived there in peace for many years suddenly feel unsafe in their own homes. This is a problem we can solve, and Parliament needs to debate it and act on it.
Penny Mordaunt
There are some opportunities next week for the hon. Lady to raise these matters; some elements of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill would enable her to do so. She could also raise them in questions on 21 November. Councils around the country have dealt with the matter in very different ways, and there is a lot that local authorities can do. I will raise this with the Department on her behalf to see whether it can offer her any advice on how the situation can be resolved in her local area.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points? Nationally, around one third of households do not have access to off-street parking, but in my mainly rural constituency the number is even greater. We need innovative solutions to allow people to charge their electric vehicles. There is a big focus on rapid chargers, but we need to increase awareness of slower chargers and charging hubs. If we had a debate, we would be able to identify exactly who is responsible in communities for the roll-out of those EV charging points and what role councils can play in delivering accessible, reliable and affordable charging.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will know this is an extremely important part of the move towards more electric vehicles. We have pledged at least £500 million to support local charge point provision, and we will continue to support that roll-out. It might be a topic for an Adjournment debate, and I encourage him to apply for one.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
We heard a lot in today’s autumn statement about the international headwinds of inflation and fuel prices, but we did not hear very much about the 12 years of Conservative mismanagement of the economy in the United Kingdom and the penury that it has heaped on people in Scotland. So many people across these islands are in work, but two thirds of our households living in poverty are working households. Food banks, which were unheard of before this Government came to power, are now a feature in every town, village and city. We did not hear anything about defence—we will hear about that soon—but this Government spent £6.6 billion on the nuclear enterprise alone, so can we have a debate on the role that will have in the future of these islands? Scotland does not want those nuclear weapons, the UK cannot afford them, and Scotland cannot afford the UK.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to raise another issue that was not spoken about in the Chancellor’s statement: the fact that the SNP has been forced to cut funding to public services by 8% in real terms after its financial mismanagement, which led to it facing a £3.5 billion overspend. With regard to the nuclear enterprise, I will not even attempt to persuade him of its merits. If he cannot see the merits of such an enterprise in the light of what we face at the moment with an aggressive Russia, I think he is a lost cause.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I set up and chair the Anglesey Freeport Bidding Consortium, which includes Stena Line, Anglesey County Council and other stakeholders. Ynys Môn is desperately in need of levelling up, with a gross value added among the lowest of any constituency. Does the Leader of the House agree that a freeport on Anglesey will bring good-quality jobs and investment? Will she visit the newly launched website angleseyfreeport.co.uk to see for herself how important our freeport bid is for Anglesey? Will she agree to a debate in Government time on Welsh freeport proposals?
Penny Mordaunt
Not only has my hon. Friend asked a textbook question, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will be pleased to know that she is observing protocol by not bringing props into the Chamber. She has got changed, because earlier today she was wearing a sweatshirt with “angleseyfreeport.co.uk” written across it and could be found walking around the Palace of Westminster campaigning at every opportunity to bring those opportunities to her local community and to help companies such as Rolls-Royce, Bechtel and many others. I congratulate her on her tenacity.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I have been working with a bereaved family in Croydon whose father, Andreas Kassianou, died tragically of legionnaires’ disease in hospital in 2020. The NHS triggered an inquest that confirmed that he had died as a result of legionella contracted entirely because of the inadequate flushing of the water in his room by staff. Mr Kassianou’s daughters, who are obviously mourning the loss of their father, now face unaffordable legal fees because they did not meet the requirements for legal aid. That seems deeply unfair considering that the trust accepted liability and the family never asked for an inquest in the first place. Will the Government give parliamentary time to discussing the urgent need for reform for bereaved families who face such extortionate legal fees for inquests that they did not initiate into events for which they were not at fault in any way?
Penny Mordaunt
That situation cannot be right, and I am very sorry to hear about the added pain that Mr Kassianou’s family are going through. I think the best course of action would be for me to write, on the hon. Lady’s behalf, to seek advice from the Department of Health. She will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend understands the real importance of the steel industry not just to my Scunthorpe constituency but to our whole nation. Is she aware of the ongoing talks between British Steel and the Government? If it is needed, would she support a debate in Government time to discuss how we can best protect that vital strategic industry?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend very much understands the importance of this industry, and not just to jobs and the levelling-up agenda; it is a sovereign capability that we have to protect. The Conservative party has, famously, an Iron Lady; it has a Steel Lady too. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done to help to provide support for that sector; £780 million has been given in support to the industry over the last few years, obviously including the £300 million rescue package. That was put in place prior to her coming to the House, but I know that she campaigned on it. Thanks to her tenacity, we have twice extended steel safeguards to protect the industry. We recognise that this is a strategically important sector. In contrast, under Labour the number of workers employed by the industry halved and production levels fell. I urge her to continue her campaigns.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
In my Blaydon constituency, we have great swimming clubs such as Gateshead synchronised swimming club and Gateshead and Whickham swimming club, which rely on our local leisure facilities to produce great talent. Our local Dunston leisure centre is at threat of closure due to the lack of funding, as are many others across the UK, so can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of keeping public leisure centres and swimming pools available across the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very passionate about this agenda, and have gone to great lengths myself to keep swimming pools open, so I thank the hon. Lady for raising it. I am sure that such a debate would be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. I encourage her to apply for either a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate in the usual way.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On Monday, I visited Lauren and the team at Renfrewshire toy bank, which distributes gift packages, including toys, books and clothes, to families who cannot afford to buy their children a present for Christmas morning. They had 2,000 referrals last year but expect around 3,000 this year. Many of those referrals are for families with a parent in work. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Lauren and her team—they are all volunteers—for the work that they do, and make time for a debate on child poverty and why the Government are failing so many families?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate the toy bank that the hon. Gentleman visited. There are many such schemes around the whole of the UK, and they do a tremendous job in plugging those gaps. He will have just heard in the Chancellor’s statement about the additional support that is being provided, the fact that we have protected benefits, the household support fund, and of course our commitment to the energy cap, which will help as well. If the hon. Gentleman gets colleagues’ support, he can apply for a debate, and I encourage him to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, and well done to everybody who actually asked about parliamentary business.
Backbench Business
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Men’s Day
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day.
It is an honour to lead this year’s debate on International Men’s Day. I hope that this year’s speech gets as much publicity as last year’s did. Last year’s speech led to much controversy, but I believe the message got over that boys need role models, and positive role models at that. I asked to hold the debate again because I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys, and as such International Men’s Day, which we mark on Saturday, is an important date in the diary. It is a time to highlight many issues that men and boys face, and to celebrate many of the wonderful charities out there that are doing such wonderful work—Andy’s Man Club, Men’s Sheds, Lads Need Dads and the Men and Boys Coalition, to name just a few.
I also want to speak about these issues because I want to help society as a whole. I am a father of both a boy and a girl—well, now young adults—and I want both to do equally well. However, the reason I joined the APPG on issues affecting men and boys is that I see too many issues, at a constituency and national level, that have a negative impact on men and boys, with no concerted action to tackle them. Of course, those issues have a negative impact on women and girls too, whether it be a brother’s suicide, a partner dying from prostate cancer, a son who is failing at school, or violence that a man commits against a woman, sometimes in the most horrific ways. Men and women all share lives and society together. My reasoning is therefore this: if we help half the population to become better equipped at handling life and more comfortable being themselves, we in turn help the other half of the population. It is a win-win. With the help of debates such as this, and in my role as chair of the APPG, I hope to do just that.
Much of the work that our APPG has done recently has been on the issue of men’s suicide. It is tragic that 13 men each day see this as the only solution to the problems they face. Our evidence sessions discovered that, although getting men to talk and open up is an amazing thing to do for them and helps so much, it is not enough. There are often underlying causes, and if those are discussed but not properly dealt with, men still often see suicide as a genuine way out, regardless of therapy.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate. My brother sadly took his life recently, so I would like to give a big shout-out to all the community initiatives and charities that support men, particularly the Amlwch Men’s Shed and the Amlwch walking football team, who do so much to support men’s mental health and wellbeing right across Anglesey.
Nick Fletcher
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am ever so sorry to hear that news. I am hoping that, through debates like this, we can reduce that number to zero.
The issues that can cause this include chronic health issues, such as a bad back that stops a man working, money worries through not earning enough or poor financial management, or a sudden bereavement of someone close to them. One of the main issues I have seen in my constituency is the consequences arising from the breakdown of marriages and relationships. Each of those has its own reasons why it can often appear more difficult for men to deal with.
Take the bad back. Like whiplash claims and now mental health issues, men suffering with chronic pain can often be accused of “trying it on”. Paid days off work and no obvious visible signs of injury often lead to the opinion that a man must be swinging the lead. I am sure that some have tried it on over the years, but that is what is so dangerous—the fraudsters. They make it so much worse for the genuine cases. Years of chronic pain with no one believing you is no fun. “The man of the house” is a saying that, unfortunately, does not help, when a man is not able to fulfil the role that he believes he should and that, far too often, society believes he should too.
We have two paths: a path of help from someone who listens and then helps, or another path of health problems, depression, anxiety, addiction and loneliness, and some will think about suicide. Talking is good, but practical support is needed too.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of the TikTok video in which a woman asks, “What do you do as a man when you have a problem?” and then a collection of men say, “Nothing. No one cares. I have no one to speak to.” Is that not the biggest problem when it comes to men’s mental health—when they talk about it, they feel there is no one there to support them, and they feel forgotten about and ignored? That is the key to getting a policy in place to support men and their mental health.
Nick Fletcher
I could not agree more. This is why Andy’s Man Club, Men’s Sheds and organisations like that are helping enormously with this issue. The growth of Andy’s Man Club over the past year has been phenomenal, so the need is there. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
It is the same for a man who has lost his job and feels he has no other job to go to; again, he feels he has no worth and no value. The more he feels like that, the less he values himself, and the less chance he has of getting a job or climbing the ladder to get a better job. He wants to be the breadwinner—another unhelpful word—and wants to have the best for his family; he does not want to say no to his kids. It ends up with an eviction notice, car finance too much, electric metre cutting out, or sometimes with someone in his ear telling him that he is a failed man. Again, we have two paths: a path of help from someone who listens and then helps, or another path of health problems, depression, anxiety, addiction and loneliness, and some will think of suicide. Talking is good, but practical support is needed too.
Marriage breakdown is always a bad time for both individuals. It has a real impact, but even more so when children are involved. When I spoke to a local divorce lawyer, he said that the best outcome that a man can expect from a divorce is 50% of the assets and to see his kids every other weekend. That can lead to other significant problems.
The man should rightly pay his dues, and should want to—he needs to provide for his kids—but he has to have somewhere to live too. He can end up in a situation where he is in a lonely bedsit with noisy neighbours, the heating off and an empty fridge; where there are continual breaches of child arrangements orders with no consequences except more ignored solicitor’s letters and legal fees; where there is parental alienation, because their children’s heads have been needlessly turned against them by the other parent; and where the weekend with the kids gets postponed for no good reason and the kids are not keen on seeing their dad because the bedsit is cold and he never has any money, so the next weekend is missed too, which means that a solicitor’s letter must be sent, only to be ignored—more money spent on legal fees that he does not and should not have to pay.
My mailbox is regularly filled with letters from fathers—and some mothers, to be fair—complaining about the injustice of it all. They are heartbreaking to read and I am sure that other hon. Members receive the same. Again, we have two paths: one of help from someone who listens and then helps, and another of health problems, depression, anxiety, addiction, loneliness and, for some, thoughts of suicide. Talking is good, but practical support is needed too.
The APPG heard that some men believe that suicide is a practical solution to a problem—can we believe that? They cannot see their way through. They cannot cope. They feel that nobody will miss them and they have no value. They think that they got themselves there and that that is not what a man should be like. They have tried to get help, but either no one can help, no one cares, or no one will listen, so that path led nowhere. They think, “This is it. This is my path. Goodbye.” No, that cannot be right. We must stop that. We really need a Minister for men who can co-ordinate action and champion issues affecting men and boys, whether that is lower exam results than girls, men sleeping rough, or understanding why 80,000 men are in our prisons. We also need a men’s health strategy to help to deliver firm action and break down many of the health barriers that men face.
Dr Luke Evans
I was a GP before I came into the House, so I saw the way in which men present differently from women, and the different ways in which people choose to interact. They are gross generalisations, but in medicine, a generalisation is a useful way to understand patterns, and pattern recognition is important. It is about understanding that the status that a man brings, and the need for status, is important. It is also about vulnerability and building up trust to allow them to speak about the issues that may come in. Equally, men can be transactional. We need a men’s health strategy to understand those differences and to balance against the women’s health strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the right time for that?
Nick Fletcher
My hon. Friend is helping enormously with the debate. I have spoken to him before about a men’s health strategy and yes, now is the time. There is an old phrase that says, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is now.” That is exactly where we are with the men’s health strategy, and a Minister for men.
We need someone to be accountable across Government, which also means putting pressure and targets on health bodies and the education system. Ensuring that the Government Equalities Office gives equal reference to men as a group that it supports would be a welcome start. Equality means equal and fair treatment. When members of the public, including in so-called red wall seats such as mine, are asked whether it is fair and equal to have a Minister for Women and not a Minister for men, of course they say no. They believe, as I do, that we should have both. Why would anyone who truly believes in equality think differently? Let us stop talking and start doing.
Why do many men get through life and many do not? Is it luck of the draw or is it a solid family upbringing? I do not believe in luck, but I do believe in family and I do believe in good role models—good dads, good mums and good role models—such as the dads and men who put their kids first, not the ones who just say it; those who put their kids before themselves every time; those who help with homework before the football; those who put school shoes and a full fridge before a big TV; those who tuck them into bed, not those going down the pub; those who show them how to treat women properly and how to love their mum; the dads that are good role models, and the mums and wives who let their partner be that good role model, too. That is not luck, just good role models who show boys how to become men, how to cope and how to deal with life’s knocks.
We know families do break up, and we know it can be just as much the man’s fault as the woman’s, but we must remember that, whatever caused the break-up, the kids must come first. Why? Because they need a male role model just as much as a good mum. Equally, however, dads need their kids. They need that value in their life and that part of their life where they are genuinely worth something—not just money or material things, but just the value of being a dad—and when I talk about good dads, I mean good step-dads, too.
By letting this happen, we let the child become a good man, and one who does all the things we want good men to do. So if we see a man struggling in his life, we need to talk to him, find out what has gone wrong and what the real problem is. We need to find out what the solution is, write a plan with him, put our arms around his shoulders and help put the value back in him. He might not have had a good role model himself. He might not know what he is doing wrong and he might not know how to put it right. However, if we help him, we can give him another path, and maybe—just maybe—he will turn into a great role model himself.
I am not sure this speech will get as much publicity as the earlier one today, but I hope it does. I hope that we can all help a man in our life, who in turn will treat the women in our lives well, and show the next generation what a good life can look like and what a good man can look like. Some men do wrong, some men struggle and, sadly, some men take their own life. We should rehabilitate the ones who do wrong, help the ones who struggle, listen and practically support the ones who are desperate, and celebrate the majority of men who are good. Let it not be a competition between men and women; let it be a family and a population working together for good.
I ask, at the end of my speech, that we put in place a Minister for men; someone who can champion their cause, take an overarching look at Government policy and be made accountable for reducing the many sad statistics that will no doubt be repeated throughout this debate. We need a Minister to champion the places where men talk, but also look at the solutions that can and should be put in place to practically help men and boys with their issues. As we said in our latest report, there is no point in listening if no one is acting or doing. We need a Minister who can make sure that boys have the male role models they need away from home so that they grow up to be good men. We need to have local government and community groups in place for those men who have missed out on a good man in their life so far. It is often said that prevention is better than cure, and I applaud that sentiment, but some men have already been let down, so we need both—role models for our boys and help for our men. Let us celebrate International Men’s Day 2022 with a Minister for men.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this year’s debate and on chairing the APPG so well, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate in the Chamber this year.
International Men’s Day is an opportunity to celebrate boys and men, and their contributions to society and their communities. It is also an opportunity to look at the issues facing them in the modern world, raise awareness and, I hope, spark meaningful change. It would be remiss of me not to mention the team behind Movember, who for so many years now have worked hard in successive Novembers to raise awareness of prostate cancer, which is a really important issue to shine a light on for men across the UK. I also want to thank the Samaritans for sharing its briefing with colleagues ahead of today’s debate, so that we can address one of the most crucial issues impacting men today and the reasons behind suicide. I want to pass on my sympathy to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on the loss of her brother.
Some of the darkest statistics we will hear today are around suicide. Men account for three quarters of all suicides, and it is the leading cause of death in men under 50 here in the UK. Each life lost to suicide is devastating. It leaves a hole in the lives of families, friends and communities that can never be filled. Most tragically, almost all suicides could be preventable if the person had access to the right support, and if societal and socio-economic factors could be addressed.
Today’s social media age has brought with it new challenges, building on a pressure—the pressure to look good—that has existed for women for centuries. This was not a new phenomenon that came with the birth of Facebook or Instagram, and men will also have been influenced by glossy photos of celebrities and models on magazine stands and in films. That constant pressure has consequences for those of us who do not wake up every day looking like an airbrushed model from a catalogue. The discourse around this issue often focuses on the impact felt by women, and although there are reasons for that—the pressure is ingrained in girls from a much younger age, and much more overtly—the impact that that pressure is having on boys and men is often overlooked. The way such pressure manifests in girls and women might look different, and is perhaps more easily recognised, while men struggling with body image or eating disorders might focus their energy on exercise or the gym. To the naked eye that might seem healthy, because they are bulking up and building muscle.
Dr Luke Evans
I am hugely grateful to the hon. Lady because she brings up such an important point about body image, and especially the male physique. Between 0.5 million to 1 million people are using anabolic steroids to try to get that perfect image, and that is ongoing in the UK without us being aware. Does she think there should be more focus from the Government on those kinds of issues that specifically affect men?
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Gentleman is an expert in this area, and I absolutely agree with him. It would be good if the Government could look at that issue—hence me raising it in this debate. Societal beauty standards are different for men, and while thinness might be an aspirational expectation set through the media for women, for men it generally is not. For men there is an image of fitness and muscular build, which means that often those signs in men are not recognised.
Eating disorders are indiscriminate when it comes to gender. There are many, and while anorexia is of course devastating, there is also bulimia and compulsive eating. Those disorders can ravage the body, but they also have an extreme detrimental effect on the mind. Although research on eating disorders in men is inconsistent, having only really begun in recent years, there are some figures that might illustrate how much more prevalent such disorders are than many of us realise. A 2021 study by Beat estimated that approximately 1.25 million people in the UK have an eating disorder. The same survey estimated that about 25% of those people are male. That is tens of thousands of men and boys suffering with these conditions, and struggling to access the right support. Some of those males may not even realise that they have an eating disorder.
Two big issues are at play, and both come down to eating disorders being viewed as a “female” problem. First is the social stigma and difficulty that men experience in recognising that they have an eating disorder and in seeking help. Anorexia, for example, is often seen as a problem caused by vanity, which is not only untrue but a simplistic and narrow view of an unbelievably complex disease. The social stigma attached to male mental health is huge, and the less such issues are spoken about, the more isolating and shameful it can feel. Secondly, as a result, men and boys will hide their feelings, and they will not proactively seek help. With the NHS as stretched as it is, and because eating disorders are more commonly recognised in women, health professionals are less likely to spot the signs in men.
I referred to the body ideal for men as being seen as muscular, and I want to touch on muscle dysmorphia, a form of body dysmorphic disorder, which has a higher incidence in men. Sometimes referred to as “reverse anorexia”, muscle dysmorphia is defined by being preoccupied by worries that one’s body is too small or not muscular enough, despite having a normal build, or in many cases an objectively extremely “buff” physique. It is basically a completely distorted view of their body. Although muscle dysmorphia has some overlap with eating disorders, it is not one, but the fixation on that body type, and the steps men take when pursuing it, can lead to unhealthy eating habits, strict dieting, and develop into an eating disorder. Media and pop culture, magazines, TV and computer games all perpetuate that imagery and stereotype, which is unnecessary and only feeds into a hyper-masculine cultural ideal that is harmful to men and boys in somany ways.
The occurrence of eating disorders in men and boys is closely linked to a number of other mental health conditions. Risk factors include depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder and mood disorders. One study showed that men with eating disorders are twice as likely to have comorbid substance abuse issues, misusing drugs such as cocaine or stimulants for their appetite-suppressing side effects. That is a monumental issue for the men experiencing those problems. It needs better recognition.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member highlighting the terrible crisis and tragedy of male eating disorders. Does she share my concern not only that insufficient attention is given to men and boys who suffer from eating disorders but that we are not generally good as a society at supporting those people who have been through the acute phase of an eating disorder—they may have got their weight back —to recover? We are better at that post-acute rehabilitation phase with girls and young women, but we are terrible at that with boys and men.
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Yes, that rehabilitation stage does need to be better and include men and boys, not just women. As I said, this is a monumental issue for the men experiencing these problems. It needs better recognition, and they need better help.
I mentioned obsessive compulsive disorder, which, as with most mental health issues, affected men do not find easy to talk about. Representations of it in the media have often presented it as quirky or comical. It is also trivialised: how many times have we heard someone say light-heartedly, “I’m really OCD about that” when talking about keeping their desk neat or their kitchen clean? However, OCD is a serious mental health concern. Like many others, it has a spectrum of severity, with some people experiencing milder symptoms whereas, for others, the constant intrusive thoughts can really limit quality of life. It is not just rituals like those we see on TV of switching on a light exactly ten times. All these traits are common. It is also about feeling completely unable to control the brain’s darkest thoughts and worst fears until they are all-consuming and nothing can be done to stop it.
OCD often has a distinct thought pattern, with obsession, anxiety, compulsive behaviours and temporary relief. It is a cycle that repeats and is commonly comorbid with anxiety, depression and eating disorders. Most people with OCD say that their compulsions are irrational or illogical, but still they feel an overwhelming need to act on them just in case. Because of its perception in the media and more widely, it is another condition that men struggle to admit experiencing. Many see it as shameful or a weakness.
People with OCD and depression will often experience suicidal ideation. I therefore want to reflect on the links to eating disorders, suicide and male mental health in general. There are organisations who can help support those who think they may have an eating disorder. I encourage anyone who thinks that they might—or if they know someone who might—to take a look at Beat’s website, where there is lots of good information. Its national helpline is open 365 days a year to offer swift help and advice.
It is so hard for many men to break down the barriers to accessing the right mental health support. As a society, we need to do better at looking at the men in our lives and letting them know that it is okay to need some help. In fact, it is normal.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for his work in securing the debate. I must say that I am a little disappointed. I would have hoped that, on a debate about half the nation, the Benches would have been it bit more full. Perhaps that is a sign of what the challenge is, because when we talk about men’s issues, we often do not talk about men’s issues. I am afraid that in a debate where we should be celebrating all the immense impacts of men across society, my speech, like others’, will focus on mental health and suicide and how we should be talking more and encouraging men to talk more about the challenges they face. Men contribute so much to society. I wish I was here with full Benches talking about the immense impact that men have for good in our society, just as we would if this were International Women’s Day and we were rightly celebrating the impact of women on us all.
I want to start with a point I have mentioned many times in this place, which is about mental health and the need for greater support. I had a 10-minute rule Bill, which I will try to bring back at some point, which aimed to ensure that mental health first aid awareness is part of physical first aid in the workplace. One challenge is that people, men in particular, do not know how to talk about issues they might be facing. They do not have to wait until the worst time, when it is affecting them in a way that is visible; they should be able to talk at an earlier stage about the challenges they might be facing.
One part of the challenge we have in society is the idea that men are supposed to be all strong. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned the idea of the physical nature that men had to have—the Arnold Schwarzeneggers and the Sylvester Stallones that I grew up with in the 1980s. Ultimately, men had to be strong and not show weakness. As a man it was weak to show weakness. Actually, I say the opposite: that to show a weakness, to talk about a weakness and to ask for help is the greatest strength to have. The challenge for many is that they are not asking and are not looking for support, because they do not always know where to go for it. They do not know who they can trust, who will not mock them or ask them questions about things they do not feel comfortable talking about.
That has been exacerbated—this was mentioned earlier—by social media. Andy Warhol said that in the future everyone would have 15 minutes of fame. I say, sadly, it is now 15 minutes of shame. When you raise a concern, you get mocked for it. If you are not popular, then that is somehow a reason why people can attack you. They can say horrid things to you and move on to the next person. We see it in politics. I call it sniper politics: the idea that you take out one individual, whether a politician, a celebrity or someone in the community, with a hate pile-on. People are vile to a person in the moment and then move on to the next victim and the next victim. Is it any wonder, then, that men and women—in the context of this debate, men in particular—feel awkward raising concerns and talking to their friends in a way that might be shared or laughed at?
It does not have to be that way. There are a lot of opportunities for men to take control of their lives by asking others to help them. One is by forming stronger networks and by having a society where we help each other and listen to each other. That is why debates like this are so important and why I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, especially after the pile-on he experienced last year for making comments in this place. From being attacked in such a way, he has come back today, in a place that could have been quite vulnerable and open to attack, to say, “No, I do believe in this. This is a strong place to be in.” That is a strength.
Sometimes it is hard to go against the grain. Sometimes it is hard to talk about issues that others do not always agree with. That is why this place is so important. That is why I would have loved the Benches to be full of people talking about the challenges they face. We are, ultimately, whether people like us or not, role models. Within society, we have to look at how role models play a part, whether they are teachers in schools, sports people, doctors, or a nurse down the road working at a care home. All those people, across society, are people that young kids, boys and girls, can look up to and see a career option. That can break down barriers. When people think of nurses, they should think of men and women. When they think of care home workers, they should think of men and women. They should not just think of a particular type of role for a particular type of person.
We can also think about places such as gyms. In my Watford constituency, I visited NRG gym recently and I have visited one called CageFit. I heard amazing stories of people who do mixed martial arts fighting. Thankfully, I did not get in the ring—I do not think I would have fared too well—but people talked about the impact of going to such gyms. One of the gentlemen I was chatting to said that once people learn that they can fight in the ring for money, they do not want to fight on the streets for free. That was really about antisocial behaviour and kids in certain areas or in difficult circumstances perhaps being encouraged to join gangs. By joining a gym, they can be around other positive role models and learn that they have value in other ways, through their physique or mental capacity.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend has hit on something: we should not be shy of masculinity. It is about how to use that in a positive way, whether we are talking about sport, going to the gym or being a father figure. That is really important and if we try to close that down, it closes status, and that results in bad mental health. Does he support that philosophy after what he saw in his gym?
Dean Russell
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does, especially on physical attributes and ensuring that people do not feel that they should be attacked online because of their body image. I agree—this is not only about surrounding oneself with role models, but about someone feeling as though they can be the best version of themselves. We often see that challenge. We are potentially creating a society, partly through online media, that shapes people to be something that they are not. They can use digital tools to change the way that they look online, but they then compare themselves in the mirror to that unrealistic ideal.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He is talking about the negative impact of social media and pile-ons online, and so on. Does he agree that the more time that boys, in particular, spend online, the less time they spend offline in the physical presence of other young men and boys, doing things like climbing trees, taking appropriate risks, and doing things that will improve their mental and physical health much more than they will sitting in their bedroom alone on the internet?
Dean Russell
My hon. Friend makes an important point; she understands this area very well and has done incredible work in this space. I agree 100%—there is, of course, a place for digital, social media and the internet, but if that becomes the world in which someone exists, that has to be a bad thing. Girls climb trees, too, and boys can climb trees with girls, but this is about going out into the real world and spending real time with real people, learning social cues and understanding the challenges that one faces. People can learn about rejection in the real world and in the virtual world, but they learn how to deal with it with friends and by talking about that.
To come back to a point that I made in my maiden speech, I often use an acronym HOPE, which stands for Help One Person Everyday. Sometimes that one person has to be ourselves. We sometimes have to be able to say, “Look, I need to go to speak to somebody about how I’m feeling. I need to go to the pub on a Friday night and have a laugh with my friends. I need to chat about stuff that has been challenging me or issues that I have and not feel like I have to keep all that inside.”
I will start to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am conscious that there will not be many more speeches, but I will not speak for the full hour that we have left, although you know that I probably could. I want to mention a couple of important points about suicide, which has been discussed. Men are invariably more likely to take their lives than women. That is a saddening statistic and it is the same around the world. In the UK, we have to try to stop this. It is not just about speaking to people, but about making sure that the network exists. Also, for those who have gone through that process and have, sadly, got to the point of perhaps trying to take their lives, it is about making sure that they have long-term support. I ask the Minister to make sure that we have the mental health support for young people and everyone alike, so that people have long-term support to get through the challenging times. I visited the Samaritans in Watford recently, and found that they do incredible work in ensuring that they are at the end of the telephone line for somebody—and, of course, there is anonymity to ensure that they are supported.
I am particularly proud of the fact that this is one of Hertfordshire County Council’s top priorities. It wants to create a county that is suicide-free, and I want to create a country that is suicide-free, but we can only do that by talking about it. We can only do it if each one of us, in each of our constituencies, says that we need to make this a top priority. We need to save lives, we need to change lives, and we need to make sure that the next generation knows this is important.
Let me end by repeating a statement that I made last time I spoke on International Men’s Day. I want to remind everyone who is watching the debate that they should ask others if they are OK—not just once, not just twice, but every time they see them. They should also ask themselves, “Am I really OK?” By doing that, we can ensure that we have a society that cares and people can be signposted to the help that they need, but also ensure that we really do deliver a compassionate country that saves lives, changes lives, and gives people the ability to be the best that they can be.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who made an excellent speech. Let me also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate, and on his phenomenal work—to which other Members have referred—in supporting men and boys. Let me say to him, as one Yorkshire MP to another, that I admire his ability to say it as it is, even if he sometimes gets some stick.
I must declare an interest in this debate. I have a husband, a dad, brothers, nephews and two sons. I was even fortunate enough to reach the age of 40 with both my grandfathers still alive. Sadly one of them passed away recently, at the age of 92, after a long and fulfilling life which included growing churches on the islands of the Torres Strait off North Queensland. The other recently reached the age of 90. He too enjoyed a fulfilling life and an amazing career, and could beat me at table tennis until the age of 80. I am extremely fortunate to have a family full of amazing male role models, including fathers such as my own husband, who at this moment is probably juggling teatime, homework and piano practice. I am very grateful to him for that.
It is a real privilege to speak in this International Men’s Day debate to honour all the great things that men contribute to our families, our communities and our nation, and also to discuss some of the unique challenges that are faced by men and boys in this country. Men and women are different—biologically, psychologically and socially. We have evolved to perform very different functions, in society and in families. Men and women are equal, but not the same. I think that one of the mistakes in recent years has been to push for equality between the sexes—which is right—without recognising important differences, and without celebrating male virtues and male roles. We frequently talk—rightly—about how to get more women into engineering or technology, but pay insufficient attention to the decline in the number of young men gaining technical skills, and the fact that boys are falling behind girls in education. When the traditional virtues of masculinity and male identity are portrayed as redundant or negative or not uniquely male, what is left for young men to aspire to? This is certainly a confusing time to be a young man.
Dr Evans
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Toxic masculinity is potentially very dangerous. We set our young boys up to think that there is something innately wrong with them in relation to the way in which they interact with society. Does my hon. Friend feel that that is a problem?
Miriam Cates
Absolutely. I think that the danger of not giving a positive version of masculinity—something that is unique, positive and good for society—is that, sadly, we are driving some young men and boys to the far right. They are given a version of masculinity that none of us here would support, but which offers them something that, at present, some of the discussions that take place in society do not offer. That is why it is so important that we do offer something to young boys.
I think that some of the economic and social changes that have taken place over the last 40 years have had benefits but have also led to significant costs, particularly for working-class men and boys. The decline of industry and hence of skilled, well-paid, secure jobs has caused a drop in wealth, health and status for many men.
The steelworks in the town of Stocksbridge in my constituency used to employ 11,000 men; it now employs 750. Steel jobs still pay 50% more than the average Yorkshire wage. They require skills and they confer status, but they are now few and far between. The economic and social consequences for men of the loss of such jobs have been severe. We need to consider how we can reinvest in British industry, not to go back to the past but to pivot to the skilled, advanced manufacturing jobs of the future, such as those at the specialty steel plant in my constituency. Not only would a revival in manufacturing and industry be good news for men; it would be beneficial for the UK economy, which has a terrible balance of trade—we make nowhere near enough stuff ourselves—and for our security and self-sufficiency in important materials such as steel.
While industrial and manufacturing jobs have declined, the number of young people going to university has soared. Of course, that has brought benefits, but there is no clear relationship between the number of graduates and the nation’s GDP, and we now have far more graduates than our economy requires. About 50% of recent graduates are thought to be in jobs that do not require that level of academic education. This focus—I might call it an obsession —on cognitive credentials and degrees over technical or vocational skills has been particularly disadvantageous to working-class young men.
Recent research shows that the median earnings of men who graduated from the bottom 23 universities are less than the median earnings of non-graduates. In other words, a significant number of younger men would be better off not going to university—and that is not to mention the debt they will acquire while there. I am delighted that the Government are pushing a skills agenda, but we must do more to open up apprenticeships to young men. The Chancellor’s announcement today that we will move towards a German and Swiss model of skills education is great news, but we should also consider whether some of our enormous higher education budget—I think it is about £14 billion a year—could be better deployed for the benefit of young people and the economy.
Men and boys have also suffered as a result of the decline in family stability over the last few decades. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, the most stable form of family—and the one with the best outcomes for children—is where the parents are married. That is not a value judgment; it is clear from the evidence. Married parents are twice as likely to stay together as non-married parents. By the age of five, 53% of children with cohabiting parents will have experienced their parents’ separation, compared to just 15% of those with married parents. Married men live happier, longer, healthier lives, and boys with committed, present fathers have better outcomes than boys in families who do not have that presence.
Marriage is good for men and boys, yet marriage rates have declined significantly over recent years, particularly among lower income groups. Marriage has almost become a middle-class secret. Of the highest earning 20% of white couples, about 85% are married. In the lowest income group—the bottom 20% of white people—only 19% are married, and the divorce rates are much higher. A poor white child is very unlikely to have a father; a rich white child is very likely to have a father. That is how stark the difference is.
There has been a rise in loneliness among middle-aged men as a result of family breakdown. Family breakdown is also contributing to the housing crisis. I think it might have been the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) who pointed out that a second home is needed when families break down. That adds to the housing crisis and creates financial problems for the family.
The UK is an outlier among western nations, in that our policies and our tax system do not recognise families, nor strong couple relationships and marriage. For example, in the UK we are taxed on an individual basis. HMRC sees only our individual income and we pay tax on that, without any account of how many people that income supports. If someone earns slightly more than £50,000 per year, which is considered a high wage—thinking about the tax thresholds—but they support, say, a family of six, they are taxed the same as a single person who earns the same amount but supports no one at all. As people enter the higher tax rate, they also lose their child benefit and there are all kinds of knock-on effects of the tax system. Other countries such as France, Germany, Canada and the US have different systems, in which the household is taxed or in which family policy recognises the benefits of parenting and supports families. We need to reform our taxation system to be much more pro-family and to make it easier for couples to stay together. I am delighted about the Government’s family hubs programme; we need to determine how family hubs will support fathers to be involved in the early years of bringing up their children.
Finally, there is an issue affecting the health and wellbeing of men, particularly boys, in a truly alarming way. We have a growing public health crisis as a result of the proliferation of online pornography. In 2020, pornography websites received more traffic than Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, Zoom, Pinterest and LinkedIn combined. For too long, society has viewed porn as a private matter, assuming that what people do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, but it is clear that the impacts on society have been significant and negative.
We must wake up to the destructive impacts of internet pornography. There is nothing “mainstream” about the porn now available online. Mainstream pornography platforms host vast quantities—unknown quantities—of filmed crimes: videos of trafficking, rape, non-consensual sexual violence, child sexual abuse material, sexual coercion, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women and children, intrafamilial rape, humiliation, punishment, torture and pain, all available at the click of a mouse or the touch of an iPhone.
Analysis of 130,000 titles of videos that were recommended to first-time users of Pornhub and other major sites found that one in every eight described sexual activities that constitute sexual violence. “Teen” was the word that occurred most frequently across the dataset; the second most common category was physical aggression and sexual assault. Viewing such videos affects what men, particularly boys, think about sex—what they think is normal and what they think is acceptable.
It is right to think about the impact of pornography on women and girls. It is notable that so many high-profile rapes and murders in recent years, including the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, have been committed by men who were addicted to hardcore pornography. However, children’s consumption of online pornography has been associated with the dramatic increase in child-on-child sexual abuse, which now constitutes around a third of all child sexual abuse, so we also need to think about the negative impact on boys.
Approximately 50% of 12-year-olds have seen pornography online, and 1.4 million children in the UK access it each month. A UK survey found that 44% of boys aged between 11 and 16 who regularly viewed pornography reported that it gave them ideas about the type of sex that they wanted to try. We have seen the normalisation of strangulation during sex, and of anal sex among young people. A year or so ago, a case was reported of a boy who raped a girl in school; when the teacher asked him why he had not stopped, he said, “I thought it was normal for girls to cry during sex.” How are these boys ever going to enjoy normal, loving, fulfilling intimate relationships?
During puberty, boys’ brains develop an erotic imprint in which what they see as normal and appropriate sexual behaviour is laid down. That imprint will stay with them for the rest of their life. How many of these boys will be drawn into serious sex offences? How many will endure broken relationships or broken families, or never form relationships at all?
Pornography also affects boys’ health. There has been an increase in erectile dysfunction among teenage boys. At the extreme, the constant use of pornography can quickly lead men not to become aroused by anything other than hardcore online porn. That is why it is so important that we pass the Online Safety Bill when it returns to this House, and that it goes through the House of Lords and becomes an Act of Parliament. We must introduce secure age verification so that no children can access pornographic websites. We must stop children accidentally viewing or deliberately sharing pornographic images with one another online. While children’s brains are developing, it is so crucial that they do not have access to extreme material.
At the moment, internet pornography is completely unregulated. I am afraid that people who say it is parents’ responsibility to make sure their children do not view it are not living in the real world. Even if a child has no phone and no computer, all it takes is a classmate to put their own phone in front of the child for them to see this stuff. A child is only as safe as the least protected child in their class. It would be a bit like telling parents to teach their children to cross the road safely if there were no speed limit, no crossing points and no side of the road that we legally had to drive on—it would be completely impossible.
As well as being completely unregulated, internet pornography is a public health disaster. On top of the Online Safety Bill, we need the Department of Health and Social Care to lead a public inquiry into the harms of pornography—not only the harms to women and girls, the harms to the economy and the criminal aspects but the harms to boys and men and to their happiness, fulfilment and physical and mental health. The future social impact of this porn epidemic will be catastrophic if we do not protect our boys and girls. I believe that online pornography is the opiate trade of our age, and we should be outraged by what our children are seeing.
Our families, our communities and our nation need strong, confident, healthy and skilled boys and men. It is therefore in all our interests to invest in skills and industry, to support marriage and families, and to end the destruction caused by online pornography.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Steven Bonnar.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening this debate, all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate on International Men’s Day, when we recognise not only the contribution of men to society but, more importantly, the long-lasting systemic issues faced by many of us.
As an MP sent here from Scotland, and as a representative of the Scottish National party, I stress the importance to me and my party that we persistently address inequality wherever and whenever we find it. As a nation and as a society, we will never truly flourish if we do not allow all our people the opportunities they deserve and the chance to fulfil their potential, whatever their social or economic background. For far too many men across these islands, that chance and those opportunities are not always possible. Indeed, they are becoming increasingly unattainable for many of us.
Far too often, we hear of the consequences of negative mental health for men but little of its factors and root causes. According to studies conducted by the Mental Health Foundation, societal expectations and traditional gender roles and stereotypes contribute to why men are far less likely to open up and discuss or seek support for their mental health problems.
We know that the gender stereotypes faced by women, such as the idea that they should behave, look or dress a certain way, can be hugely damaging not only to them as individuals but to society as a whole, and it is also important to understand that stereotypes and expectations can have a detrimental impact on many men. We find it difficult to talk about our feelings, to open up and to admit we are not coping well with the demands of life—that is to say, the demands that are real and present, but also those we perceive to be upon us.
Men are also more likely to turn to harmful coping methods, such as growing a dependency on drugs, alcohol or other harmful escapes. These actions, of course, serve only to exacerbate and compound poor mental health, leading to a downward spiral that far too often ends in the tragic act of a young man taking his own life. I take this opportunity to call, once again, on the UK Government to devolve drug policy to the Scottish Parliament, which will allow the Scottish Government to properly tackle the root causes of many of the tragic losses of life we see in Scotland week in, week out.
According to the latest figures from Public Health Scotland, 75% of those who died by suicide in 2021 were male, with the highest rate occurring in the 45 to 54-year-old age group. The probable suicide rate was three times higher in the most deprived communities in Scotland than in our most affluent areas. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) spoke about the impact of that. We know that work pressures, low pay, relationship breakdowns and parental alienation—being separated from our children after a relationship breakdown—are key factors that drive men to think suicide is an option.
The Scottish Government are determined to see a Scotland in which suicide is prevented and where help and support are available to anyone contemplating suicide, with further resources made available to anyone struggling with self-harm or thoughts of suicide. The Scottish Government’s new “Creating Hope Together” strategy takes a whole Government and society approach to tackling the social determinants of suicide, so that we take every opportunity to identify and support people who are feeling suicidal.
These kinds of actions and that type of compassion are, regrettably, not always present in this place, and we see that in the treatment of the most vulnerable people in our society. Young men in the UK asylum system are disproportionately impacted by Britain’s frankly inhumane system as it currently operates. The vilification from some in the Government and in the mainstream media only serves to add to that. When the Home Secretary uses terminology such as “invasion” to refer to young men asylum seekers, is she doing so with compassion? No, she is not, far from it.
We know the asylum system is broken, but after 12 years of Tory Government rule the onus of responsibility is on those on the Government Benches. They have created the mess and the backlog. It is they who have failed to repair a broken asylum system, and they must recognise the consequences of that for the mental health of men.
Last year, 46 charities dealing with issues of asylum, children and mental health, including the Refugee Council, the Children’s Society and Mind, wrote to the Health Minister in charge of suicide prevention and highlighted the dozens of suicides they had discovered among teenage male asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their home countries. Zoe Gardner, former policy advocacy manager at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, gave these poignant words in response to the UK Government’s current asylum policy:
“You can be a man and a refugee. You can be a man and a victim of trauma, torture and sexual violence. You can be a man with disabilities. You can be a man who has lived closeted or been abused because of their sexuality. The narrative that men somehow are not vulnerable and are not in need of protection is completely false. Men are very often the ones targeted in the first place in refugee producing countries.”
If the UK Government will not heed the advice on mental health provisions and echo the progressive vision of the Scottish Government to attempt to mitigate the high rate of suicides and poor mental health regulations, then we again call for the devolution of immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament, which is a Parliament that has proven time and again that no matter where people have come from, or their financial background, their wellbeing will always be our priority.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call shadow Minister Yasmin Qureshi.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate and bringing it to the House, as well as the Backbench Business Committee.
I am pleased to take my place here as the shadow Women and Equalities Minister and close the debate for the Labour party. I am incredibly proud to be in this role because it focuses on addressing inequalities in society, wherever we find them. However, the reality is that we will never, as a country or a society, be able to truly flourish if we do not ensure that everyone can fairly access opportunities and fulfil their potential, whatever their background may be.
I want to thank several hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate, starting with the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). She talked about the overuse of steroids by men complying with societal ideas about what a physically appealing male should look like, and the whole issue of eating disorders.
The hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) talked about mental health issues and the use of social media and the internet, which can aggravate such issues. I liked his acronym HOPE, and he talked about the Samaritans. I am originally from Watford and many years ago I was a member of the Samaritans, although I am no longer. I remember times when the same person would ring three or four times with the same problem, and it was clear that they needed someone to listen to them and talk to them—not to give them advice or to guide them but just to listen. It is important to recognise how much loneliness there is in our society, especially for men.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) talked about the men in her life. I had a great father and a brother, both of whom have passed away. It is not fashionable to say this, but I have a great husband as well. The issue of toxic masculinity is pertinent, and she said that it had attracted people to far right politics. She also talked about the issue of pornography, which gives a warped view about issues of sexuality.
Before I continue with the main points of my speech, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for sharing the sad news of her brother’s suicide. I am sure the whole House sends its condolences to her and her family and thanks her for speaking out so bravely today.
Today’s debate is about mental health in particular, and rightly so. Figures reveal that suicide is the biggest cause of death in men under the age of 50. Around three quarters of deaths from suicide each year are of men. Added to that, data from the Office for National Statistics show that the highest rates of suicide in men have been in mixed and white ethnic groups. Men aged 45 to 49 are at most risk of suicide, and the rate among this group has been persistently high for many years.
Historically, we know that there is often an alpha male archetype, which means many men feel forced to stoically toughen up and get through the bad times, while avoiding opening up, speaking to people or seeking help. We need to do more to address these very outdated stereotypes of masculinity. Equally, we need to do more to support men who are struggling or in crisis.
Dr Luke Evans
Does that mean that Labour supports the idea of having a male health strategy, or a male Minister?
Yasmin Qureshi
I can take that back to our team for discussion.
Currently, 1.6 million people are on an NHS waiting list for specialised mental health treatment. That is about one in 35 people, or roughly the populations of Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield combined. While an additional 8 million would benefit from support, they cannot even get onto a waiting list. The need for greater Government investment in mental health provision could not be more urgent.
My party would take strong action to ensure access to mental health treatment within a month for everyone who needs it. That is, of course, a distant dream for so many men and women across our country. We would hire 8,500 new staff, so that 1 million new people could access treatment by the end of our first term in office. This would be part of our plan for the biggest expansion of the NHS in history, funded by scrapping the non-dom tax status.
Men’s physical health is of concern, too, because of the disparities in men’s physical health issues. Men have a shorter life expectancy: one in five die before the age of 65. This becomes even more concerning when we compare the life expectancy of men in the most and least deprived areas of the country, because there is a stark gap of 9.5 years. Men are also disproportionately affected by heart disease, and more men than women are overweight or obese, yet despite all this, men are still less inclined to seek help or advice from medical professionals. This lack of engagement can mean that men are often under-supported. Without regular health check-ups, serious issues can go untreated for longer—sometimes when it is too late. This is really concerning; we know just how important early intervention can be in the treatment of male-specific cancers and in overall cancer incidence, which is 24% higher for men than it is for women.
This reminds us how important it is that we have a proper public health strategy for everyone—one that will turn the tide on the rising health inequalities and improve health for men. We need a strategy that is focused on early intervention and ensures that people receive the care and support they need. Instead, we have a Government who have chosen to cut public health budgets substantially across the country. A Labour Government would invest in the biggest-ever expansion of the NHS, as I mentioned earlier. Growing the NHS will also grow our economy and go a long way to rooting out inequalities once and for all.
Of course, one cannot discuss men’s health without looking at boys’ performance in education, which we have touched on in this debate. In basic terms, boys perform worse than girls by the end of primary school, with 70% of girls reaching the expected standards in maths, reading and writing compared with just over 60% of boys. Boys are three times more likely than girls to be excluded from school, something that I know causes tremendous concern to many working families up and down the country.
That gap persists at GCSEs and A-levels. Young women are more likely to apply to university than young men. Those young men who apply are more likely to drop out and those who complete their courses are less likely to get a good degree. The disparity becomes even more acute among those from disadvantaged backgrounds: young women who were on free school meals are 51% more likely to go into higher education than young men. Disadvantaged white boys are the least likely of all groups to go to university, with just 8.9% continuing their studies.
Children have only one chance at an education. Reducing those disparities requires early and sustained intervention, which must be designed to ensure that all children, whatever their background, circumstances or gender have the opportunity to achieve at school and to access university education. Instead, we have seen this Conservative Government systematically shutting Sure Start centres, which provided early intervention support for so many families. There is no sustained programme of education catch-up, something that is so necessary given how many boys and girls are missing out on the support that they need. We want a proper education plan for that. That is why we say that breakfast clubs must be provided for all children as an element of catch-up, but that has not happened.
Whether we are considering issues around physical or mental health or educational attainment, we know that not all men and boys are affected in the same way. Indeed, those issues are often closely connected with other deep-rooted inequalities. The Government’s own suicide prevention strategy from 2012, for example, highlighted that gay and bisexual men are at much higher risk of self-harm and substance misuse. Similarly, a study by the University of Exeter found that men from black and minority ethnic backgrounds experienced a far greater deterioration in their mental health during covid lockdowns than their white British counterparts.
I will wind up in the next minute or so, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will indulge me. Studies show that black men are far more likely than others to be diagnosed with a severe mental health problem. However, up until the age of 11, black boys do not have poorer mental health than others of their age, so it is quite clear that there are systematic reasons why they experience mental health problems far more than others after the age of 11.
We know that there is a stark divide between children from poorer backgrounds and their wealthier peers, with secondary school children on free school meals being 18 months behind by the time they take their GCSEs. There is no avoiding the fact that white working-class underachievement is symptomatic of a much larger social, cultural and economic inequality, and therefore we must take a holistic view.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to remind the House that International Men’s Day, which will be marked this Saturday, is just one week ahead of White Ribbon Day, a day on which men across the country are called on to make a promise that they will never commit, excuse, or remain silent about male violence against women. The murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer shocked the whole nation. We thought that would be a turning point, but little has changed, as shown by the recent murder of Sabina Nessa in a public park by somebody she did not know. While men are also victims of violent crime, women are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of severe domestic abuse, which has doubled over the last five years.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Lady is making an important point about male violence against women. Does she not agree that it is imperative that we end the proliferation of online porn, which normalises violence against women? Of course there are no excuses for violence against women, and men who commit those crimes should be locked up, but we must recognise that online pornography is driving that behaviour.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and agree with her.
At every level, we should all be tackling violence against men and women. We must not consider gender equality to be a zero-sum game or a trade-off. Let me be clear: we can address women’s safety as well as serious issues and concerns for men. Indeed, we must do both.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I am very pleased to be able to join this year’s debate to celebrate International Men’s Day. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate so that we can join 80 countries around the world in marking this day.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) not just for leading the debate, but for his consistent campaigning on the issues that affect men, and for his work as chair of the APPG on issues affecting men and boys, which continues to shine a spotlight on issues from mental health and wellbeing to boys’ education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) pointed out, it is disappointing that so few Labour and Lib Dem Members are in the Chamber, because they have missed a tremendous debate.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) about the tragic suicide of her brother. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) spoke so well about the body-image issues that men face, which are rarely talked about enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) spoke about a multitude of issues that affect men, including in particular their roles and importance in family life, and pornography and how it affects young men.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford made a moving speech on a range of issues, and I will start by addressing some of the points he made about suicide. It is tragic and unacceptable that, on average, 13 male suicides occur every day, and that suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 50. About 75% of all suicides are by men, so it is so important that we tackle the mental health issues that men face.
It is no surprise that after a number of years of tackling covid, which raised distress, anxiety and isolation over lockdown, as well as fears about jobs, before going straight into cost of living pressures, everyone—both men and women—has felt an impact on their mental health. However, we know that, for a variety of reasons, men are less likely to seek help. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford pointed out some of those reasons.
It is incumbent on all of us, across the House, to urge all men across our constituencies to reach out to the available support. In recent years, we have seen huge strides forward in the provision of support. We now have the Every Mind Matters campaign, which provides practical help and tips to improve our mental wellbeing. The NHS website supporting Every Mind Matters is easy to access and provides a range of tools that men can use themselves.
Importantly, we now have self-referral to talking therapies, so that men and women—but particularly men who are reluctant to seek help—no longer have to see their GP to get a referral. More than 1 million people have accessed talking therapies through self-referral. We are investing in those services by putting in an extra £2.3 billion a year to grow mental health services and meet demand. It is not enough simply to expect men to seek help themselves, however.
Dean Russell
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her kind words and feedback. A couple of years ago, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to make mental health first aid part of workplace first aid. Will she take that idea back to her colleagues across Government to see whether we could look at it again? I would like to introduce that again. Ensuring that people in the workplace know that they have someone to go to in the same way as if they had a physical issue could be transformative.
Maria Caulfield
I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He might be pleased to know that there are mental health first aiders on the floors of the Department of Health and Social Care offices. They support staff there and do a great job. I am keen to speak to him about that.
We need a whole-systems approach, as the APPG highlighted in its report, which I have read. It makes for interesting reading in terms of how we support men, particularly around their different experiences of health services and how we can improve outcomes. A number of organisations are helping to support mental health for men, such as Men’s Sheds, which was mentioned in the debate. Men’s Sheds offers new opportunities to learn skills, build friendships and reduce isolation, and is helping men to meet in different ways from traditional settings, and to build relationships where they may feel comfortable to speak out and ask for help.
We also need to look at how different approaches can work in tandem. Earlier this year, we put out a call for evidence to support the development of a new 10-year plan for mental health. I am pleased that groups such as James’ Place, Men’s Sheds and Andy’s Man Club are among the many involved. We want to reduce suicide rates, and to do that we have to support men, who account for 75% of suicides currently. We are looking to bring forward some specific work on that shortly, and I will happily meet my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley to see how we can take it forward.
We are taking significant action in terms of mental health, but a number of illnesses affect men in particular, including heart disease, cancer, smoking, and drug and alcohol addiction. While life expectancy in the UK is lower for men, women spend significantly more time than men in ill health and disability. That is why we have a women’s health strategy: because we want to tackle the basis for why women spend so much of their lives in ill health. We can improve life expectancy for men by ensuring that we tackle the illnesses that they face. My hon. Friend has challenged me on that before, because he feels so strongly that there should be a men’s health strategy, but I will happily discuss it with him after the debate to see what more we can do.
Not having a men’s strategy, or indeed a men’s Minister, does not mean that the Government or the NHS take men’s health any less seriously. We will continue to look for ways we can support men’s health. There are a number of exciting initiatives, such as the Man Van, which is an innovative outreach programme launched this year that provides free health checks for men and aims to boost early diagnosis of prostate and other urological cancers. That mobile health clinic visits workplaces and churches in London to improve healthcare access for men who are less likely either to come forward or to receive regular health checks.
The Man Van was developed by the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. I declare an interest, as I have worked for the hospital in the past and still do some shifts there. Its specialty is enabling us to target the men most at risk of developing prostate cancer and who have poorer outcomes if they are diagnosed, particularly those in manual jobs who often struggle to access healthcare. Black men, who have roughly double the risk of developing prostate cancer, and an increased risk of death once diagnosed, are also being encouraged to get checked. If the results of the pilot studies that are being rolled out show that they were successful, we will roll them out across the country.
In the short time that I have, I will touch on stereotypes, which have been raised throughout the debate. Phrases such as “man up” and outdated beliefs about what it means to be a man do not help men to get the help that they need. One issue that was not touched on much is domestic violence that affects men. The recent crime survey for England and Wales suggests that 13.8% of men aged 16 to 74 have experienced domestic abuse behaviours. That is an estimated 2.9 million male victims. While the figure is much higher for women, that is a considerable number of men who are experiencing domestic violence, and we need to ensure that we are reaching out to them and supporting them. The Government have increased funding by 60% for community-based support focused primarily on male survivors, and we will update the supporting male victims statement in August this year to outline the further work that we will do in this area.
In terms of getting equality for men, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will be happy with the work being done to support fathers, particularly new fathers who want to take on a full role in family life. In terms of the work around shared parental leave, men are still more likely than women to have their requests for flexible working turned down by their employer, and men still struggle to get paternity leave rights. We recognise the vital role that dads play in helping to raise their children—that is why we are establishing the family hubs and Start for Life programme—and we are committed to ensuring that men get the parental leave they are entitled to.
In conclusion, today’s debate has raised some prominent issues that are affecting men, but we have not had much time to celebrate men. We all have dads, grandads, husbands, brothers, friends and colleagues who are men and who do a tremendous job. Men sometimes get a raw deal in terms of criticism. When my mum died, my dad had to take me and my brother on when we were teenagers, at a time when there was no such thing as childcare or support for single fathers. He did an incredible job. He used to take me to the football at the weekend, whether I liked it or not, which is why I am now an Arsenal supporter. He used to have to take me to work as well, where I learned to paint and decorate, because childcare was not available in those days.
All of us in this place who are married to men are thankful for the role they play. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said, they support us in our roles, and when we have had a terrible week or the online trolls are particularly active, we are very grateful for them just having that cup of tea with us and making us realise that there is a life outside this place.
The opportunity today to debate the issues that matter to men is important, and I will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley to make sure we pick up on many of the points raised in the debate. It is also an opportunity to celebrate and thank men for all they do for us, not just on International Men’s Day but all year round.
Nick Fletcher
I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for letting us hold this debate in the Chamber today; it is really appreciated. I would also like to thank all Members who have stayed on a Thursday afternoon to speak in the debate. It is a hugely important debate, and their support in this place and outside it is really appreciated; I want them all to take that home with them. I would also like to thank Mike Bell and Mark Brooks from the APPG on issues affecting men and boys. They do all the work, and I take a little bit of the glory—that is just the way it works—but I thank them for that. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me wrap up the debate.
We have heard lots of different reasons why we still need a Minister for Men, and I am pleased that the Minister is going to meet me to discuss all the issues. As we have heard, there is lots of help out there. As MPs, it is our job to signpost people to the places where there is help. I ask everybody on International Men’s Day, which is Saturday: if you know somebody who is struggling, send them that text or that email, and point them in the right direction for help. Do not underestimate the power of your voice—just as a person, never mind as an MP. People really do need our help, and men especially.
We have to get the number of men committing suicide down. That is a huge issue; 13 men a day is absolutely terrible. I will be coming back next year and looking at those figures, and I will be holding Government to account. I thank the Government for what they are doing, and I thank everybody for attending today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day.
Adoption: Support for Birth Families
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I recognise that the headlines from the House today will be about the Chancellor’s autumn statement, but I am afraid that he has only made things worse for those whose lives are the subject of my Adjournment debate. Nevertheless, I am pleased to have secured this debate on a subject that is often overlooked by Chancellors, Prime Ministers and many others. I am talking about the adoption process by which children are removed from their birth parents and placed in the care of, and ultimately adopted by, parents other than their birth parents.
This year’s John Lewis Christmas advert gives a moving and positive representation of the adoption and care sector, and has brought welcome attention to the topic. I am not ashamed to say that it also brought tears to my eyes when I watched it on the train to the north- east last week. I commend the work of John Lewis and Action for Children on the advert.
Children are the most vulnerable in our society, so it is imperative that the child’s interest is first and foremost in the care and adoption process. Indeed, I would go further and say that the care and adoption process can be successful only if it is child-centred and everyone involved upholds that principle.
That does not mean, however, that birth parents should go without support. For every child adopted, there is a parent or parents who have to go through the process of losing their child. They are often parents in challenging and difficult circumstances, some of whom may not have the social or educational skills to easily navigate the complex adoption process, which is traumatic for many. It is not in the child’s interest to leave their parents without help, for the sake of the parents and the child, because a child placed in care and/or adopted may one day want to make contact with their parents, as is their right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand. Does she agree that, often, when children are not told that they have been adopted, or when information about their birth parents is kept hidden from them, that can be a distressing occurrence for adoptive parents that can cause resentment and, in some cases, even a complete breakdown of the relationship between the adoptive parents and the child?
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he makes a good point. I would always recommend honesty and transparency in everything and there can obviously be challenges where that is not followed. As I said, everything should be done in the long-term interests of the child.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate on birth parents, because we know that they often experience a lot of trauma, not least in the age of social media where they can have unsupported contact with their birth child and even more trauma can occur as a result. That is why the all-party parliamentary group for adoption and permanence published a report looking at strengthening families, including the voices of birth parents. Does she not think it is important for those voices to be heard throughout the adoption process?
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and commend the work of the APPG. I called this debate to give more exposure and a greater voice to birth parents, because she is absolutely right that the subject is not discussed enough. She talks about the contact between children and their birth parents, which is likely to be more constructive if birth parents have been supported through the adoption process and beyond.
That is why I want to bring the House’s attention to the work of a unique local charity in my constituency that provides invaluable support to birth parents. It is unique because Families in Care is a charity for birth parents that was set up by birth parents. To my knowledge, it is the only charity in the country that offers the services that it offers. It was originally set up in 1986 by birth parents of adopted children as a parent-led support group. It became a charity in 1992 and employed its first part-time worker. Since its beginning, the delivery model has been nurturing, non-judgmental, holistic and, most importantly, done in partnership with birth parents. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) had a university placement with this charity. She is unable to be here this evening, but wanted me to pass on that she gained invaluable experience from her time with Families in Care.
Before I say more about Families in Care, I want to discuss the difficult climate in which it operates. Removing a child from their parents should be a last resort, but that last resort is necessary—all too necessary—and it happens all too often. Over 80,000 children are currently in care in England. This is an all-time high, and it means more children who need our support and more birth parents who need support. The erosion in early help for vulnerable families in recent years, particularly since the Conservative Government came into office in 2010, has been shocking. More than 1,300 Sure Start centres across the UK have closed since 2010, a loss that is not nearly matched by the paltry commitment to open family hubs in just 75 locations. I hope the Minister recognises the impact of that on the adoption and care system.
My constituency in Newcastle has been hit particularly hard. Newcastle saw a 20% increase in the number of looked-after children between 2018 and 2021 alone. The North East Child Poverty Commission’s report this year shows that the north-east has the highest proportion of looked-after children in England, at 108 per 10,000 children. According to the directors of north-east children’s services, this means:
“The North East is in a vicious cycle with levels of demand causing pressure across the system and spiralling costs.”
Analysis from the University of Liverpool shows that the rise in cared-for children has coincided with rising child poverty. Given that, under the Conservatives, the north-east has become the child poverty capital of the country, this is particularly concerning for us. We are once again, after today’s announcements, faced with real-terms public sector cuts, and local authorities—already under enormous pressure—and working people are being expected to bear the burden. Newcastle City Council will have to make the £25 million it spends on children in care go further, placing yet more pressure on the care system and the parents themselves.
However, this is not the only issue. There are inequalities in adoption rates and the number of children coming into care, both in levels of deprivation and ethnicity. In 2020 in Newcastle, white children left social care settings for adoption at double the rate at which non-white children left social care settings for adoption. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups are also over-represented in the care system, and are more likely to experience low rates of adoption and fostering compared with national averages.
It is for this reason that the work of Families in Care is so important. The charity provides free, independent and specialist advocacy support, counselling and education for birth parents who are involved in child protection and care or adoption proceedings in Newcastle. Families in Care has been supported since its establishment by Newcastle City Council. However, it remains independent of the local authority, working in collaboration with the council’s children’s services to provide an invaluable mediating service.
I visited Families in Care in October this year, and I was struck by the atmosphere of support, welcome and warmth. I learned of the bespoke care, mediation, wellbeing support and counselling that families receive during all stages of the adoption process before, during and well beyond court proceedings. This bespoke care includes Len, its therapy dog, who I was fortunate to meet. I am told his nickname is Red Len, which is a reference to his beautiful ginger coat and apparently also to his politics, but as I do not speak Husky, I was unable to verify that.
Families in Care also offers learning and development sessions, mediations, therapeutic art, meditation and weekly mental health drop-ins over a cup of tea for parents. I saw one poignant and beautiful work of art, a bright collage of art and craft materials coming together to create a tree wrapped in a rainbow. It carried a powerful message to parents:
“Nothing is impossible, the word itself says I’m possible.”
Through being rooted in the community, and having been established by parents going through the adoption process, the charity is well placed to speak up for birth parents.
Chi Onwurah
Let me share with the House some of the experiences of birth parents, to give them a greater voice. The first story comes from a constituent—a mother, and a survivor of domestic violence and coercive control during pregnancy. I heard how in her case, social workers did not help her mental wellbeing, as she had to re-explain her situation to six different social workers, which she said was retraumatising. She told me how the situation was totally transformed by Families in Care, and said:
“I felt totally alone before meeting Families in Care.”
I was also contacted by another mother who felt overwhelmed by the shame and guilt associated with going to court. She felt ostracised even by her own family, but Families in Care gave her someone she could cry with or lean on for support, and someone she felt was truly in her corner.
Parents journey together with Families in Care, and they work on a peer-to-peer basis. Parents who have come through Families in Care often stay and help other parents who are going through the same situation that they were in previously. That is because, as my constituent put it,
“sometimes a social worker doesn’t look at things from the same perspective as a parent does.”
Families in Care epitomises the value of peer-to-peer mentoring, but much more can still be done to support victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse, through the adoption and care process. One constituent told me that she was refused a picture of her child once the adoption process had been completed. Will the Minister explain why that would be the case, especially when the parent had been subject to domestic abuse and was a victim of coercive behaviour?
What support are the Government planning to introduce to support birth parents through the adoption process? Families in Care provides a unique and vital service to birth parents in Newcastle, and not surprisingly it is overwhelmed by demand in Newcastle and far beyond. Its funding and support is confined to the city of Newcastle, but the demand is not. I know work has been done to explore sharing the expertise of Families in Care with other local authority areas, and it has also been working with a family court judge, Stephen Wildblood, in Avon, North Somerset and Gloucestershire, to see where that model may be best placed to succeed elsewhere, as well as in Newcastle. Families in Care receives consistent and growing demand for its services from across the country. Given the trends in child social care, which I have outlined, will the Minister work proactively with it to identify and assess areas of the UK where its model can be used or adapted to make a real difference to parents? Will her Department work with Families in Care to assess the value of peer-to-peer mentoring for the birth parents of children in care, and take that assessment forward to share across Departments?
When researching for this debate, I found it hard to find robust and nationwide data on birth parents, for example when trying to assess the average education status, or whether the impression that adoptive parents tend to come from the middle classes but birth parents come from the working class has robust data beneath it. I found it hard to find that data. In responding, will the Minister let me know whether that data is available? If it is not, will she put a programme in place to collect it? We need to know more about the reasons for and the likelihood of parents giving up their children or having them taken away from them to be adopted. Most importantly, will she assure me that she will put a support plan in place to ensure that birth parents, wherever they are in our country, receive the peer-to-peer support that they need?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing a debate on this important subject as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on their contributions. I also congratulate Families in Care, which sounds like it is doing tremendous work to try to overcome the feelings that birth parents have of isolation and being stigmatised and overwhelmed. I would love to talk to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about what more I can do with that charity. I will set out a little what the law says at the moment before turning to some of our work in this area. I assure her that I am incredibly passionate about the matter and working keenly on it.
The law is clear that, wherever possible, children should remain in the birth family and that families should be given extra support to help keep them together. We are carefully considering the children’s social care review by Josh MacAlister, which talks about early family help and better data as well as some of the other points that the hon. Lady rightly mentioned.
Where a child cannot live with their birth parents, local authorities have a legal duty to give preference to alternative care by family and friends before considering adoption. The decision to put a child forward for adoption should never be taken lightly. The ultimate decision rests with the independent court systems, and courts scrutinise the evidence before them. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned that paramount in the court’s consideration is the welfare of the child, with strong checks and balances in the system. Birth parents are supported during the process by having access to legal representation and the opportunity to refute allegations. I very much recognise what she said about birth parents feeling like they sometimes do not have the chance to do those things.
It is essential that we support birth parents and adopted children. My Department funds the Family Rights Group, of which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware. This week, I met a brilliant employee of it who is a passionate advocate for birth parents. It provides independent legal and other advice to families so that, in its own words,
“wherever possible children can live safely and flourish within their family network”.
Many birth parents of children in care will be grieving over the loss of their child or may need support to process what has happened. Adoption agencies have legal duties to provide support to birth parents. I accept that provision can often be patchy and variable, but those agencies must provide counselling services to birth parents when adoption of a child is being considered. Such counselling must be made available to them at any time throughout the adoption process, including when that support has previously been rejected. When birth parents reject counselling, agencies should offer to set up counselling for them with another agency, should they prefer that. Birth parents must be given information about the implications of adoption. Adoption agencies must explain the process of adoption and the legal implications, and birth parents should also receive written information on the implications.
The wishes of birth parents about future contact must be asked for by adoption agencies so that the court can take them into account on applications for a placement or adoption order. Agencies must also ask birth parents their wishes about the religion and culture of their child so that their views can be considered if the child does go to live with adopters.
Ensuring that adoption agencies are running consistent and high-quality services is a key priority for me and the Government. We published a national adoption strategy in July 2021, and some of our work on regional adoption agencies is to try to test that best practice, including in particular some of the counselling and emotional support that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for York Central mentioned.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for her response so far, but she will also recognise that, such is the churn of social workers involved in the adoption process, that birth parents often have six or seven social workers over the course of an adoption discussion to the point of adoption. Therefore, they do not get the representation and consistency, which is so important to give them the care the Minister talks about.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for that important intervention. Yes, I recognise there is retention and churn in the social care worker system. I am looking at that very closely and am happy to talk to her about it further. Consistency means the ability to build a proper relationship. That means so much in terms of trust, but also in terms of access to the services that we all know are important, because it increases the likelihood of someone actually taking them up.
Part of our adoption strategy includes driving improvement for contact services, which was mentioned. Where ongoing contact with an adopted child is agreed, support for birth parents or family members can help to ensure that the contact is a positive experience for the adopted child. We know that having contact with birth parents is really important for a child’s sense of their past and identity. I spoke this week to birth parents and care-experienced people who talked about the trauma for children of not really understanding where they come from. We are working very hard with regional adoption agency leaders to ensure that contact services provide better support and are a positive experience for all those who are involved, including birth parents.
On top of that, regional adoption agency leaders have established a birth parent reference group. That is really important, because the group will help to shape plans for developing better information for birth parents and family members. It will create resources for other birth parents around letterbox contact, ensuring it is easier to navigate and ensuring that birth parents are involved during the further development of any adoption services who have some of that co-design.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the comments she is making and for setting out some of the issues in the adoption process for birth parents. Will she focus on peer-to-peer support, too? The support she references is provided by agencies. As the charity and the parents who contacted me said, peer-to-peer support is particularly important, especially where there is a sense of guilt, trauma or shame associated with engaging with, say, an adoption agency.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady; that is an excellent point. I have seen, in my work in social justice areas over the years, how much of a difference peer-to-peer support makes, particularly in encouraging people to take up services that they sometimes see as the enemy. Having a trusted person saying, “Actually, this is quite good” makes all the difference. I will take that away, but I absolutely agree with her about that.
I will just briefly touch on the independent review of children’s social care, which hon. Members will know well. The review sets out recommendations for the care system and, in terms of the topics they have raised, sets a really positive direction. The review staff spoke with a great number of birth parents to understand their needs and their experience of the care system. It includes lots of recommendations to strengthen family help systems, getting them that early help that was spoken about. It also talked about family help and support being available to birth parents when adoption is being considered for a child, after a decision has been made to place a child for adoption and after a child has been adopted as well. The review also made proposals to improve the contact between birth parents and the adopted child. It is important that we get this right for children and families, and we are rapidly working up an ambitious and detailed implementation strategy in response to the review.
I will touch on court proceedings, because I know that birth parents have described those as being particularly adversarial and traumatic. They have described a lack of compassion and kindness, as well as a lack of communication and updates on what is happening. The care review flagged the importance of making the court process more accessible for parents during family law proceedings. I am pleased to say that I have met some of the team on the cross-sector public law working group, who are looking at how they can improve the process. They are building the evidence base and starting to roll that out to make sure the courts are less adversarial, based on some of the problem-solving approaches in the family drug and alcohol courts, about which I am also very passionate.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member—
Chi Onwurah
I am keen to keep the Minister on her feet. I thank her for her response. However, on the role of the charity in my constituency and peer-to-peer care, I urge her to agree to a meeting with me or with the charity so that we can take that issue forward.
Claire Coutinho
I would be delighted to, so let me take that away and see what we can do.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing another intervention. The Mockingbird set-up that is used in fostering is another example of a network of support built around foster parents. Could that not also be translated into the adoption process, particularly bearing in mind Rachel de Souza’s report on the family and looking at the more extensive family and the opportunity that that brings?
Claire Coutinho
I am very familiar with the Mockingbird programme, which I think is excellent, so I will look at that as well. I also agree with the Children’s Commissioner Rachel de Souza’s excellent report on family.
Let me bring my comments to a close, despite all the interventions. We have had a very interesting debate. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for securing it. I am particularly committed to this area, as are the Government, and to making sure that it works better for birth parents and adopted children.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Heappey
UK Export Finance has committed £3.5 billion of cover to Ukraine for priority projects across the infrastructure, healthcare, clean energy and security sectors, and the UK is supporting the HALO Trust, which so far has de-mined over 16,000 square miles of land in Kyiv oblast so that people will be able to return safely to their homes, agricultural land and businesses.
[Official Report, 14 November 2022, Vol. 722, c. 457.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey).
An error has been identified in my speech in the general debate on Ukraine.
The correct statement should have been:
James Heappey
UK Export Finance has committed £3.5 billion of cover to Ukraine for priority projects across the infrastructure, healthcare, clean energy and security sectors, and the UK is supporting the HALO Trust, which so far has de-mined over 16,000 square metres of land in Kyiv oblast so that people will be able to return safely to their homes, agricultural land and businesses.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Thursday 17th November 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 November 2022 - (17 Nov 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 119, page 105, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
“‘(2B) A limited partnership is dissolved if—
(a) it ceases to have any general partners,
(b) it ceases to have any limited partners, or
(c) each general partner is either insolvent or disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation (see section 8J(3)), irrespective of whether they became insolvent or disqualified before or after this subsection comes into force.’;”
This amendment would mean that limited partnerships dissolve if all of the general partners are either insolvent or disqualified, rather than only dissolving if they are all insolvent. Together with amendment 96 it would mean that limited partnerships would not dissolve if all of the limited partners are insolvent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 96 and 97.
Clause 119 stand part.
Clause 120 stand part.
Government new clause 30—Duty to notify registrar of dissolution.
Government new clause 31—Winding up limited partnerships on grounds of public interest.
Government new clause 32—Winding up dissolved limited partnerships.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.
This group of amendments and new clauses make provision about the circumstances in which limited partner ships dissolve, prescribe the winding-up responsibilities of the partners, and establish powers of the court to wind up limited partnerships. The lead amendment provides that a limited partnership is dissolved: if it ceases to have any general partners; if it ceases to have any limited partners; or where all general partners are either insolvent or disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation.
Government new clause 30 and amendments 96 and 97 concern the duty to notify the registrar of dissolution. Amendment 96 provides for who winds up a dissolved limited partnership. If there are general partners at the time it dissolves, the responsibility falls to them. If there are no general partners, the limited partners are obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the firm is wound up.
The effect of new clause 30 is that when a limited partnership dissolves and has at least one general partner, they must notify the registrar of the dissolution. When there are no longer any general partners at the time of dissolution, the limited partners will be required to notify the registrar. Amendment 97 removes subsection (3) from the clause as the penalty for failing to notify the registrar of dissolution is covered by new clause 30. The rationale for the provisions is that the registrar needs to be informed of a limited partnership’s dissolution so that she can reflect that in the index of limited partnerships’ names which she maintains.
Government new clause 31 concerns winding up limited partnerships in the public interest. This new clause will allow the Secretary of State—in effect, the Insolvency Service—to petition the court to wind up any limited partnership in the United Kingdom, whether solvent or insolvent, and for the court to order the winding up of a limited partnership if it considers it just and equitable to do so. The Secretary of State will be able to receive information from bodies across Government, such as a law enforcement agencies or investigatory bodies, or indeed the registrar under her new information-sharing power. That will help the Secretary of State decide whether to petition the court.
Government new clause 32 allows the Secretary of State or any other person with sufficient interest to apply to the court for orders in relation to the winding up of a limited partnership. The court may make such orders if it appears to the court that a dissolved limited partnership has not been wound up properly or at all. That will ensure that dissolved limited partnerships are properly wound up in a timely manner.
The clause amends and clarifies the existing law around the winding up of limited partnerships. The changes work together with the amendments in this group to make the register more transparent. Specifically, the remaining changes in the clause, which we have not yet debated, concern the application of the actions of limited partners. They provide that a limited partnership shall not be dissolved by the bankruptcy of a partner, and remove the current provision in the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 relating to the winding up of limited partnerships.
Turning to clause 120, the Partnership Act 1890 provides that a court may dissolve a partnership when a partner is found to be suffering from “lunacy or unsound mind”. Clause 120 updates that provision with references to modern definitions of “mental disorder”. The clause also modernises the Limited Partnership Act 1907 by removing reference to the “lunacy” of a limited partner as being grounds for the dissolution of the partnership.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
We largely support the Government amendments, but I will ask a few questions and speak to clauses 119 and 120 stand part. As the Minister outlined, clause 119 concerns the dissolution and winding up of limited partnerships. It sets out that:
“A limited partnership is dissolved if it ceases to have a general partner or ceases to have a limited partner.”
The clause also sets out what happens if a limited partnership is dissolved at a time when the firm has at least one general partner. As the Minister said, it requires the general partner to notify the registrar before they wind up the limited partnership, and it would be an offence for the partners to fail to notify the registrar of the firm’s dissolution. We welcome the new provisions, but I would also welcome the Minister’s thoughts on some comments made by Professor Berry in her evidence. She stated that:
“The Bill inappropriately amends partnership law to prevent automatic dissolution on the bankruptcy of a general partner in an LP… Personal liability is no guarantee of good behaviour if the partner is already insolvent, and indeed the same restriction remains on general partners of a general partnership.”
If I have understood correctly, amendment 95 would mean that a limited partnership is dissolved if all the general partners are either insolvent or disqualified, rather than if they are all insolvent. Taken with amendment 96, it would mean that limited partnerships would not dissolve if all the limited partners are insolvent. Amendment 96 would mean that any insolvent general partners who are not disqualified must wind up a dissolved limited partnership or take “reasonable steps” to ensure that it is wound up. If there are no general partners, the insolvent limited partners must take reasonable steps to ensure that it is wound up. We support amendments 95 and 96.
I will speak briefly to Government new clause 30 and make a few comments about amendment 97. New clause 30 would introduce a new duty on the general partners of limited partnerships to notify the registrar in the event of a dissolution. If the general partners fail to comply,
“an offence is committed by each general partner who is in default”,
but
“where the general partner or limited partner is a legal entity, it does not commit an offence as a general partner or limited partner in default unless one of its managing officers is in default.”
New clause 30 also states:
“Where any such offence is committed by a general partner or limited partner that is a legal entity, or any such offence is…committed by a managing officer that is a legal entity, any managing officer of the legal entity”—
are you still following this, Ms Elliott?—
“who is in default also commits the offence if—
(a) the managing officer is an individual, or
(b) the managing officer is a legal entity and one of its managing officers is in default.”
Some of this speaks to the complexity of some of these structures, which is why it is important to be moving forward in this way. Although we welcome new clause 30, will the Minister expand on the regulations in relation to general partners who are legal entities? Could there be a situation in which none of the criteria needed for an offence to be committed is met when the general partner is a legal entity? Is there still a loophole?
We welcome new clause 31, which would allow a court to order the winding up of a limited partnership on a petition by the Secretary of State in the public interest. New clause 32
“would mean that if a limited partnership has not been wound up as is required by section 6(3A) or 6(3B), the court can make various orders on an application by the Secretary of State or a person with sufficient interest”
to order a winding up of the limited partnership. We believe the measures strengthen the legislation, so can the Minister comment on those two points?
Clause 120 amends the Partnership Act, specifying the provision for the dissolution of a partnership on the grounds of a partner’s lunacy. It is right that we update those references to “mental disorder” within the meaning of modern legislation. However, in her written evidence to the Committee, Professor Berry makes an important point that the clause may give the impression that it
“appears to mean that mental health disorder of a limited partner is now a ground for dissolution (whereas previously it was not), which cannot be intended.”
Can the Minister respond on that point as well, just to make sure that that is not a consequence in the way by Professor Berry suggested?
Kevin Hollinrake
It might be helpful if the hon. Lady shared with me Professor Berry’s written comments, so I can look at it in more detail. Clearly, if a general partner is a legal entity, there is a named individual behind that. We have discussed that at length before. With that information, I will write back to her to clarify those points.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Amendments made: 96, in clause 119, page 105, line 11, leave out paragraphs (e) to (g) and insert—
‘(e) for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute—
“(3A) If a limited partnership is dissolved at a time when the partnership has at least one general partner who is—
(a) solvent, and
(b) not disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation, the general partners at that time who are solvent and are not so disqualified must either wind up the partnership’s affairs or take all reasonable steps to ensure that its affairs are wound up by a person who is not a partner at that time.
(3B) If a limited partnership is dissolved at a time when the partnership does not have a general partner who is—
(a) solvent, and
(b) not disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation, the limited partners at that time who are solvent must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the partnership’s affairs are wound up by a person who is not a limited partner at that time.
(3BA) For enforcement of the duties under subsections (3A) and (3B) see section 25B.”
(f) omit subsection (3C).’
This amendment means that any solvent general partners who are not disqualified must wind up a dissolved limited partnership or take reasonable steps to ensure it is wound up. If there are no such general partners, the solvent limited partners must take reasonable steps to ensure it is wound up.
Amendment 97 in clause 119, page 105, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Kevin Hollinrake).
This amendment is consequential on NC30.
Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
The register of limited partnerships
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
This is a simple clause that removes outdated requirements for the registrar to file statements made by limited partnerships and issue certificates of registration for the statements filed. It brings those into line with the more modern approach for the companies register. The clause introduces a definition of the register of limited partnerships, making clear that it is part of the records the registrar holds under section 1080 of the Companies Act 2006.
Seema Malhotra
As the Minister outlined, the clause increases clarity over the inspection of the register, and we support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Material not available for public inspection
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 122, page 107, line 34, leave out “available for public inspection” and insert
“the following material available for public inspection, so far as it forms part of the register of limited partnerships”.
This amendment spells out that the relevant material is only to be made unavailable for public inspection if it forms part of the register of limited partnerships.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 38.
Clauses 122 and 123 stand part.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 122 will prevent personal or confidential information, such as a partner’s residential address and date of birth or a limited partnership’s email address, from being disclosed to the public. That aligns the position of limited partnerships with that of companies as set out in the part 1 clauses that we have already debated.
Seema Malhotra
Clause 122 inserts a new section into the Limited Partnerships Act, as the Minister outlined, to set out provisions for certain information that the registrar must not make available for public inspection. The Minister outlined that that could include dates of birth, residential information, and I think also email addresses, for the limited partnership.
We understand the need for the measure, and the Committee has debated previously the need to hold back information for personal security or privacy reasons, but information sharing might sometimes be necessary. We have talked about those who need access to information because they are undergoing insolvency or other proceedings. Is there a mechanism by which the Government could enable information that would ordinarily be protected to be shared with third parties where it is deemed necessary and does not threaten the integrity of the register or the privacy of limited partnerships? This does get confusing, so we are probing where the registrar may be able to share information, if there is a reason to do so in terms of preventing economic crime.
Amendment 34 spells out that the relevant material is to be made unavailable for public inspection only if it forms part of the register of limited partnerships. Amendment 38 will make statements required to be made when documents are delivered unavailable for public inspection. Such statements relate either to identity verification or to an individual being an authorised corporate service provider or employee of an authorised corporate service provider.
I want to ask the Minister for more detail about why that is protected information. Have the Government considered whether it would be helpful and transparent for third parties dealing with a limited partnership to know whether an individual involved in its registration is related to an ACSP? That may be particularly useful given the evidence that has already been recounted to the Committee on the increased risk of economic crime when an ACSP is involved in the registration of the company or limited partnership. This is about transparency in relation to ACSPs.
Kevin Hollinrake
As the hon. Lady sets out, the reason for some information not being made public is security—to prevent ID theft, for example. Throughout the Bill, we are giving the registrar powers to share information wherever necessary, particularly if it relates to tackling economic crime. Nothing in the Bill would prevent any information, public or private, from being shared with law enforcement agencies. That is quite clear; the Bill facilitates that.
On authorised corporate service providers, the measure relates to statements and not things such as ID verification. This is where it may be considered that a statement is not suitable for sharing with the general public, which we have discussed in previous debates.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Amendments made: 35, in clause 122, page 107, line 34, at end insert—
“(za) any application or other document delivered to the registrar under section 8PA, 8G or 8V (changes of addresses by registrar) other than an order or direction of the court;”.
This amendment would mean the documents mentioned in it are unavailable for public inspection.
Amendment 36, in clause 122, page 107, leave out lines 35 to 37.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Amendment 37, in clause 122, page 108, line 4, at end insert—
“(ba) so much of any statement delivered to the registrar as is required to contain the information mentioned in any of the following provisions (which relate to identity verification)—
section 8A(1C)(b) or (1F)(c)(ii);
section 8L(3)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii);
section 8Q(4)(b) or (7)(c)(ii);”.
This amendment would make statements relating to identity verification of registered officers unavailable for public inspection.
Amendment 38, in clause 122, page 108, line 7, at end insert—
“(ca) any statement delivered to the registrar by virtue of section 1067A(3) or (4) of the Companies Act 2006 (delivery of documents: identity verification and authorised corporate service providers);”.
This amendment would make statements required to be made when documents are delivered unavailable for public inspection. The statements either relate to identity verification or to an individual being an authorised corporate service provider or employee of an authorised corporate service provider.
Amendment 39, in clause 122, page 109, line 4, leave out “and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 40.
Amendment 40, in clause 122, page 109, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) section 22(5) of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (extent of obligation to retain material not available for public inspection).”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on NC17.
Clause 122, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Disclosure of information about partners
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
This is another simple clause, which ensures that personal information is used only for its intended purpose and prevents personal information from being exposed to abuse. The clause prevents the registrar from disclosing personal information about partners unless, in a few limited circumstances, it is necessary to do so. In all cases, information will remain available to law enforcement.
Seema Malhotra
We support the clause. As the Minister said, it restricts the registrar from disclosing certain information unless specific conditions apply. As we have rehearsed in other debates, we acknowledge the importance of ensuring that law-abiding individuals who have provided personal information are adequately protected. I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and clarity that that information would still be available to law enforcement officers.
I am less clear about what is proactively and reactively available, in the sense of whether it is for the registrar to make the information available or for law enforcement to request it. Perhaps the Minister could just confirm that it can work both ways.
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, it can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 125
Registrar’s power to confirm dissolution of limited partnership
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 163, in clause 125, page 112, line 35, leave out “power” and insert “duty”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 164.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 164, in clause 125, page 112, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would turn the registrar’s power to confirm dissolution of limited partnerships if it has reasonable cause to believe the limited partnership has been dissolved into a duty on the registrar.
Amendment 165, in clause 125, page 113, line 15, at end insert—
“and,
(d) be published on the registrar’s website and remain published on the registrar’s website for a minimum of 20 years from the date on which it was first published.”
This amendment would require the limited partnership dissolution notice to be published on the registrar’s website and remain published for a minimum of 20 years.
Seema Malhotra
Clause 125 sets out a process for the registrar to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership that the registrar has reasonable cause to believe has been dissolved. The registrar will be required to publish a notice stating that they believe the limited partnership is dissolved and asking for anyone to come forward with information to the contrary. While we support the clause, to enable the register to be kept up to date and for information on it to be as accurate as possible, we believe that certain elements of it could and should go further to make things more robust, and we have tabled amendments 163 to 165 to address that.
I will discuss amendments 163 and 164 together. Amendment 164 would amend the provisions setting out the registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership by replacing “may” with “must”, such that the registrar must publish a dissolution notice and begin the dissolution process should they have reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership has been dissolved. In short, the amendment would turn the registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership, if they have reasonable cause to believe that it has been dissolved, from a power into a duty.
Amendment 163 is consequential on amendment 164. The explanatory notes to the Bill describe that
“there are currently thousands of limited partnerships on the register which the Registrar either knows or suspects are inactive.”
The registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of these partnerships should not be optional, hence our amendments would make it a duty.
Amendment 165 would introduce a requirement that the limited partnership dissolution notice published in the Gazette must also be published on the registrar’s website and remain published for a minimum of 20 years. This would ensure that the notice of the partnership’s dissolution is transparently and clearly available to third parties who would benefit from such information. As Professor Berry set out in her written evidence:
“All dissolution/deregistration information should be shown on the Register and retained for at least 20 years. This is essential…so that third parties can fully examine the recent history of a particular participant or investigate suspicious networks.”
It is an important principle that innocent third parties should be able to access all information about former participants following the dissolution of a limited partnership. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure finally to speak in the Committee. It would be an exaggeration to call me the second chair of the SNP; I am more the office junior to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, given her knowledge on these matters. I do not intend to repeat much of what was said by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, whose amendments I support.
I will make a wider point about power versus duty. In pretty much every Bill Committee I have sat on—perhaps it is something to do with the Bills—amendments have been tabled that seek to replace powers with duties. We all know that there are so many Government agencies and bodies that have lots of powers that are rarely, if ever, used. I have yet to hear a robust response from a Minister as to why we should not replace a power with a duty. Perhaps we will hear one—it may be the first time ever—when the Minister gets to his feet, but I highly doubt it.
In general, the Bill is good, and it enables Companies House and the Secretary of State to do a lot of vital and long overdue work. Sadly, it does not compel them to do enough. That is my issue, and that is why I support the amendments.
Kevin Hollinrake
The quick answer to the hon. Gentleman’s comment is that we believe in people using their judgment. The registrar, who we believe to be a competent person, should use her judgment in these cases. It may not always be proportionate in the circumstances to issue a notice of dissolution. However, I am grateful for the amendments.
The Bill allows the registrar to remove a limited partnership from the index of names without going through the dissolution notice process if she is absolutely certain that the partnership was dissolved, resulting in its deregistration. Amendments 163 and 164 would compel the registrar to publish a notice warning of dissolution, and then a notice confirming dissolution within two months if she reasonably believes that a limited partnership is dissolved. The registrar, despite being certain that the limited partnership was dissolved, would be forced to go through the warning notice and representation-seeking process to confirm that. It would unnecessarily take longer for the registrar to deregister a limited partnership that she was certain had been dissolved.
Furthermore, the process of issuing a dissolution notice attracts a cost. Were the registrar to issue a warning notice, wait for representations and then issue a dissolution notice each and every time she had reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership had dissolved, the cost may be significant. The registrar should therefore be given flexibility to use her judgment to determine whether to begin the dissolution notice process on a case-by-case basis.
I support the intentions of the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon, through amendment 165, to increase transparency and bring clarity to the register concerning limited partnerships that are dissolved. The Bill already requires the registrar to issue the notice of dissolution in the Gazette, which is a matter of public record and can be accessed by the public indefinitely. That information will also be added to a limited partnership’s record, with the information being made available to the public for 20 years, either on the register or through the public records office. The information would therefore already be in the public domain. However, I would like to explore with Companies House the feasibility and costs associated with also publishing that information on its website, as the hon. Members have suggested. I will return to them on that point.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments, which I welcome, and I thank SNP colleagues for their support.
I will reflect on the Minister’s comments in relation to amendments 163 and 164. Obviously, we want to look at proportionality of resources alongside the management of risk and the effectiveness of provisions. I will not press the amendments to a Division today.
In relation to the Minister’s comments on amendment 165, I welcome his taking our suggestion away to look at it, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course. Perhaps he could produce a short note to confirm how the Government might want to move forward with our suggestion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 125 will allow the registrar to confirm that a limited partnership is dissolved where she has reasonable cause to believe that it is, and to remove the name of the dissolved firm from the index of limited partnerships that she maintains. It is important that limited partnerships and interested parties are given sufficient notice of the potential dissolution, allowing them to make representations to the registrar if they object. The registrar will therefore be required to publish a notice of her intention to dissolve the limited partnership in the Gazette and to notify the limited partnership of her intention. After a period of not less than two months, the registrar may publish a second notice in the Gazette, which will effectively dissolve the limited partnership, if it is not dissolved already, and let it be deregistered.
Within a period of six years from dissolution, a dissolved limited partnership’s former general partner may apply to the registrar for the partnership to be revived if they bring the limited partnership’s information up to date and pay any fines or penalties that are owed. The Secretary of State, any partner or any person with an interest in the limited partnership may also apply to the court for the limited partnership to be revived. We expect that confirmation of dissolution power to dramatically reduce the number of limited partnerships that are currently registered. A more accurate and up-to-date register will give clarity to the public and law enforcement about the number of active limited partnerships.
Clause 126 will, within a six-month period following commencement of the Act, allow the registrar to publish a notice in the Gazette that limited partnerships are dissolved without having to follow the warning notice and representation-gathering process. This will immediately dissolve those limited partnerships that failed to comply in the six-month transitional period with the requirement to supply the registrar with information required under the Bill.
Clause 127 allows limited partnerships that are not dissolved to deregister and, should the partners want to, continue as general partnerships without the need to wind up the affairs of the firm. All partners in the limited partnership must agree to the deregistration process. That avoids both the potentially protracted process of dissolving and winding up the limited partnership before it becomes a different entity, and the associated administrative burden that would fall upon the registrar.
Seema Malhotra
We discussed clause 125 previously, but it is perhaps helpful to summarise it. Labour supports the clause. It would insert proposed new sections 18 to 24 into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. They would give the registrar the power to publish a warning notice if she has reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership has been dissolved. In the absence of any information to the contrary being received within two months, the registrar would have the power to publish a dissolution notice, and the partnership would be dissolved. The proposed new sections also provide for a process for applications to the registrar or court to revive a limited partnership if certain conditions are met.
Clause 126 is a transitional provision. It provides that if the registrar exercises the powers in clause 125 during the six-month period—is it during the six-month period or after it?—after the Bill comes into force, she can publish a notice stating that she has reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership has been dissolved without having to comply with the warning notice or notification provisions. Will the Minister clarify whether the power applies within the six months or after the six months?
Clause 127 inserts a proposed new section into the Limited Partnerships Act to allow limited partnerships that want to cease to exist to apply to the registrar to be removed if all the partners agree to deregister the partnership. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the clause will not enable limited partnerships involved in wrongdoing and economic crime to voluntarily dissolve before any scrutiny or investigation into them? Will there be safeguards against that occurring?
Kevin Hollinrake
On the hon. Lady’s point of clarification, it is after the six-month period.
On the hon. Lady’s latter point, about the dissolution of a company, will she clarify what question she wants me to address?
Seema Malhotra
I am very happy to. Clause 127 enables limited partnerships to apply to be deregistered if all partners agree. My question relates to the potential opportunity that that provides a partnership where there has been wrongdoing or economic crime and the deregistration is an attempt to avoid scrutiny or investigation. Are there any safeguards around that? Will checks take place if partners apply to voluntarily deregister under the provisions of the clause?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a fair point. Off the top of my head, I would say that that might be a red flag and the registrar would look in more detail into the parties related to the deregistration, but I will write to the hon. Lady to provide further detail on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 126 and 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 128
Delivery of documents relating to limited partnerships
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 128, page 117, leave out lines 7 to 23 and insert—
“(1) An individual may not deliver a document under a provision listed in subsection (4) to the registrar on their own behalf unless—
(a) the individual’s identity is verified (see section 1110A which, for the purposes of this section, will apply to limited partnerships as it applies to companies), or
(b) the individual falls within any exemption that may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) An individual may not deliver documents to the registrar on behalf of another person unless—
(a) the individual’s identity is verified (see section 1110A),
(b) the individual is an authorised corporate service provider,
(c) the individual is an employee of an authorised corporate service provider and is acting in the course of their employment, or
(d) the individual falls within any exemption that may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3) A document delivered to the registrar by an individual on their own behalf must be accompanied by—
(a) a statement that the individual’s identity is verified, or
(b) a statement that the individual falls within an exemption specified in regulations under subsection (1)(b).
(3A) A document delivered to the registrar by an individual on behalf of another person must be accompanied by—
(a) a statement that the individual’s identity is verified and that they have the person’s authority to deliver the document,
(b) a statement that the individual is an authorised corporate service provider and that they have the person’s authority to deliver the document,
(c) a statement that the individual is an employee of an authorized corporate service provider and is acting in the course of their employment and that the authorised corporate service provider has the person’s authority to deliver the document, or
(d) a statement that the individual falls within an exemption specified in regulations under subsection (2)(d) and that they have the person’s authority to deliver the document.
(3B) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(d) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
It is a pleasure to move the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking. The clause sets out that certain documents relating to a limited partnership can be delivered to the registrar only by an authorised corporate service provider. The documents include, but are not limited to, applications for registration, changes of address, changes relating to partners, and confirmation of statements.
We are concerned by the provisions set out in the clause, particularly those on allowing documents relating to limited partnerships to be submitted only by ACSPs, given the concerns that have been raised about economic crime committed through ACSPs. As a result, we support amendment 166, which would expand beyond just ACSPs the range of people who can deliver documents relating to limited partnerships. It would remove the provision in the clause that mandates that only ACSPs can deliver such documents and replace it with new provisions.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to provide that clarification. I thank the right hon. Member for Barking, who is not present today, for her amendment. The measures in part 2 are intended to tackle the role of limited partnerships in global money laundering schemes. Clause 128 ensures that key documents pertaining to limited partnerships can be submitted only by an authorised corporate service provider. The key is that those providers must be registered with the registrar and supervised for anti-money laundering purposes. Doing so will give the registrar a clear audit trail of who has been setting up and providing corporate services to limited partnerships, and enable that audit trail to be shared with AML supervisors.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston is absolutely right to say that there are question marks over corporate service providers. We know that, and we recognise those comments from UK Finance. That is why the Treasury is undertaking the consultation on how we can improve the supervision of corporate service providers, which certainly needs to be done. As I have said many times, corporate service providers can be major accountants that are bona fide organisations; the hon. Lady refers to the minority of corporate service providers that we do need to better regulate and supervise. That body of work is currently being undertaken.
We think the approach of requiring ACSPs to provide the documentation, which is more restrictive than the filing options for limited companies, is appropriate given both the relatively low numbers of limited partnerships created each year and the fact that they are used chiefly by the investment sector, which routinely uses agents. The amendment would require individuals to submit documents if their identity was verified, but it would remove the requirement for individuals to be relevant persons under the money laundering regulations. I do not think that would be the right approach. It would mean that they would not, for example, have the obligation to conduct due diligence checks on those on whose behalf they were acting or to adhere to record-keeping requirements, and they would not be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes.
Clause 128 will serve not just to better support supervision but as a prompt for better supervision, so I invite the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. This is an important debate. I am not sure that we have exhausted it today, and we may not, but it strikes me that the Minister’s main argument—that the volume of registrations might be less—is not the strongest. I wish to look further at what he said about who and what would fall under anti-money laundering regulations and whether the amendment could reduce some of the scrutiny and controls in that respect. I do not believe that would necessarily be the case if we were effectively allowing individuals to submit documents on their own behalf if they wished to do so.
It would be worth our coming back to this issue. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking will also want to reflect on the Minister’s comments, but we remain concerned about the delivery of documents relating to limited partnerships. I recognise what the Minister said, but I also appreciate—he will know this from his work on these issues in the past—the concerns about trust and company service providers and ACSPs. If we can make the provision a little stronger and a little more in line with the way the process works for companies, and if we push the argument just a little further and there is not as strong a downside as the Minister believes, it may be worth coming back to this issue. I will reflect on it with my right hon. Friend. On that basis, I intend to withdraw the amendment.
Kevin Hollinrake
Just to clarify, my argument was not that smaller numbers of limited partnerships are being set up and therefore the risk is less. It is quite the opposite: we know that limited partnerships have been involved in economic crime so we think the risk is greater. That is why we want to put in an extra layer of scrutiny. We believe that introducing somebody who is supervised under the AML regulations provides that extra level of scrutiny and an extra level of check and balance in the process. That is our basic argument.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 41, in clause 128, page 117, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 118. —(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 128 is another simple clause. It ensures that key documents pertaining to limited partnerships can be submitted only by an authorised corporate service provider. I have already set out why clause 128 is so important in making limited partnerships and their partners subject to a greater level of scrutiny than they are currently exposed to.
Seema Malhotra
As the Minister has outlined, clause 128 inserts into the Limited Partnerships Act proposed new sections 26 and 27, which require applications for registration and documentation of changes to be submitted by an ACSP. We have had a useful debate to which I am sure we will return.
Proposed new section 27 gives the Secretary of State the power to disapply section 26 if that is necessary
“in the interests of national security”
or
“for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime”.
We did not go into this exemption in much detail and the Minister may have some further comments on it. The ideas of national security and preventing or detecting serious crime are quite broad; perhaps the Minister could comment on some of the circumstances in which he sees the power being used by the Secretary of State and whether this might be an example of where the use of the power and the number of times it is used should be reported through some mechanism to Parliament.
Kevin Hollinrake
We have debated the same issue at length on a number of occasions. We feel they are proportionate powers to hand the Secretary of State and will be used very rarely.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 129
General false statement offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 129 simply introduces two false statement offences—basic and aggravated— into the Limited Partnerships Act. The offences mirror those in the Companies Act and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The Committee has supported this approach when debating other clauses.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I just want to clarify for the record that clause 128 was confusing, Ms Elliott, because I was talking about proposed new sections 26 and 27, which are in clause 128. I hope that has cleared that up.
Clause 129 relates to general false statement offences. As the Minister said, the clause introduces two levels of offences relating to the submission of a false, misleading or deceptive document or statement to the registrar. That is absolutely right. Proposed new section 28 defines offences where such submissions are made without reasonable excuse and proposed new section 29 defines aggravated offences where such submissions are made knowingly. In each case, where an offence is committed by a legal entity, every managing officer of the entity will also be deemed to have committed the offence. We welcome the new offences and support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 130
Service on a limited partnership
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 130 specifies how documents may be served at the registered office for the purposes of the Limited Partnerships Act. The clause is necessary to ensure that the registrar or another body can serve documents to a limited partnership’s registered address with assurances that they will be received. It is in line with the principles we discussed in part 1 of the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. We support this straightforward clause. It inserts a new section in the Limited Partnerships Act to enable documents to be served on the limited partnership by leaving them at or sending them to their registered office. We welcome and support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Application of company law
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 131, page 120, line 18, leave out
“any Act, whenever passed or made”
and insert
“either of the following, whenever passed or made—
(a) an Act;
(b) Northern Ireland legislation.”
This would allow for consequential amendments to be made to Northern Ireland legislation if the power inserted by clause 131 of the Bill is exercised to apply company law to limited partnerships, for example amendments to the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 131 to 133 stand part.
New clause 48—Application of Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 to limited partnerships—
“In Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985, references to a company shall include references to a limited partnership.”
This new clause would extend the investigations regime under Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 to include Limited Partnerships.
Kevin Hollinrake
To set the context, clause 131 permits the application of company law to limited partnerships where that provision of company law is similar to, or corresponds to, limited partnership law. That will ensure that when company law is amended over time, the corresponding limited partnership law can be amended alongside it, making it easier to keep company law and limited partnership law aligned. To ensure the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, the regulation-making power in the clause will be subject to the procedure applied to the company law that it will adapt. Government amendment 42 amends clause 131 so that the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 can be updated to apply to limited partnerships, so that we can disqualify general partners for their actions within a limited partnership.
Turning to clause 132, there is some ambiguity as to whether a limited partnership that is registered in Scotland, or one that is in business in Scotland but registered elsewhere in the UK, has legal personality distinct from its partners. That has significant consequences as the partnerships that are legal persons distinct from their partners can, for example, enter into contracts and own property in their own right. The clause clarifies that only those limited partnerships that have been registered by the registrar for Scotland are legal persons distinct from their partners. That puts beyond doubt the fact that limited partnerships that have their principal base of business in Scotland but are not registered in Scotland are not legal persons in their own right—the place of registration is determinative.
Clause 133 provides that regulation-making powers can also make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional and saving provisions. It sets out definitions for negative and affirmative procedures. I am happy to let Opposition Members speak to their amendment before I respond.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 48, which would extend the investigations regime under part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 to include limited partnerships. The new clause simply applies to limited partnerships the investigation regimes that companies are currently subject to. We have heard throughout the Committee’s debate on part 2 of the Bill how limited partnerships can be used as a vehicle for economic crime. We have raised numerous concerns, reports and consultations by this Government and other agencies that identify the risk of economic crime through limited partnerships and Scottish limited partnerships. As a result, new clause 48 provides a simple mechanism for applying more scrutiny and transparency to limited partnerships—something I am sure the Government will agree is important. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on this matter. I hope the Minister will consider the strong reasons for bringing in this new clause.
Kevin Hollinrake
On new clause 48, it is of course right that Companies House should have the necessary powers to investigate wrongdoing by limited partnerships. I am fully signed up to improving transparency and scrutiny, as the shadow Minister knows. One thing we want to avoid, though, is duplication. I will set out why I think the amendment is unnecessary on that basis.
The provisions set out in part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 allow the Secretary of State to appoint investigators to conduct investigations into companies’ affairs. Part XIV applies to companies, overseas companies, and limited liability partnerships. All of these are bodies corporate with independent legal personality. In these cases, it makes sense to have powers to investigate the conduct of the people running them to ensure that they cannot hide behind the independent legal personality of the entity itself.
In contrast, where a limited partnership has no separate legal personality, the conduct of its partners is unshielded. They can already be investigated for fraudulent and other unlawful conduct under existing criminal law and prosecuted accordingly. Where a partner in a limited partnership is itself a company, the provisions of part XIV would already apply to them. It is therefore unnecessary to extend the investigations regime under part XIV in its entirety to limited partnerships, as this amendment would.
Nevertheless, I welcome and am happy to consider suggestions that help us to root out wrongdoers and deal with them appropriately. I have asked my officials to consider which of the measures in part XIV of the 1985 Act there might be a case for refashioning to bolster the authorities’ ability to investigate limited partnerships and those concerned in their management.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his very helpful response to new clause 48. I think it is the right way forward to be considering the provisions in part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 that might be relevant and applicable, so that we do not duplicate what may be on statute elsewhere. The easiest way to keep this issue on record for further debate would be for the Minister to come back to me in writing once officials have had a chance to make their assessment. We would be grateful for that.
Clause 131 sets out provision for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State to facilitate the continuing alignment of partnership law with general company law. We support this, and the discussion we have just had is in alignment with that principle. We also support amendment 42. Clause 132 sets out provisions to make it clear that a limited partnership registered in any part of the UK other than Scotland does not have an independent legal personality, even if its principal place of business is in Scotland. The location of registration is the determining factor. It would be helpful if the Minister spoke to this measure, so that we are clear on the reasons behind it. Clause 133 inserts new section 28 into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and sets out the general provisions for regulations that can be made under that Act and that the power to make regulations will be exercisable by SI.
I also just wanted to clarify the process by which regulations will be made, because I think they are subject to negative procedure rather than positive resolution procedure. I just wondered why the Government have made that decision about these regulations.
Kevin Hollinrake
In terms of the situation with Scotland, it can be confusing for third parties—it might be a bank, for example; opening a bank account—to understand the difference between a business that is operating in Scotland and has a base there, and one that is registered as a Scottish limited partnership. This measure is trying to clarify in law the difference between the two, to try to ensure that the right questions are asked in those circumstances. That is the basis for this clarification.
If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady to say why we have determined that regulations made under the negative or affirmative procedure should be treated in the way she describes.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 132 and 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 134
Limited partnerships: further amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to consider that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 134 omits section 17 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, which gives a power to the Board of Trade to make rulings relating to the registrar’s functions, including duties, forms and performance of officers. This is because section 1068 of the Companies Act 2006 contains a power for the registrar to impose requirements about the form, authentication and manner of delivery for documents, which renders section 17 of the 1907 Act unnecessary.
Schedule 5 adds new headings to the 1907 Act to ensure that the legislation flows coherently. These reflect the new provisions inserted into the 1907 Act by this Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful to the Minister for laying that out. As he outlined, clause 134 omits section 17 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and introduces schedule 5 to that Act, which makes consequential amendments. We have no issues with or comments to make on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 134 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 135
Register of overseas entities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
The clauses that we will now debate in part 3 of the Bill make amendments to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which establishes the register of overseas entities. The amendments all serve either to either address issues identified post-implementation or to align the ECTE Act with similar provisions in companies legislation, for instance provisions relating to false statement offences.
The ECTE Act requires overseas entities that own or intend to own land in the United Kingdom to register their beneficial owners with Companies House in certain circumstances. The ROE opened for registrations on 1 August 2022. Section 3 of the ECTE Act currently states that the register is to consist of the following:
“a list of registered overseas entities…documents delivered to the registrar under this Part or regulations made under it, or otherwise in connection with the register, and…any other information required to be included in the register by this Part or regulations made under it.”
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I want to make a few general points about registers of beneficial ownership and have a number of questions for the Minister, as a preamble to commenting on clause 135 specifically. Registers of beneficial ownership are not, of course, a new concept. We have had one for UK companies, namely the people of significant control register, since 2016. In that year, David Cameron made what would turn out to be the first of many promises to introduce a register of overseas owners of UK property, meaning that for the first time
“foreign companies that already hold or want to buy property in the UK will be forced to reveal who really owns them”.
Yet here we are, six and a half years and four Prime Ministers later, still discussing how to implement the register. After years of kicking the can down the road, it took the Russian invasion of Ukraine to jolt the Government into action. The first of this year’s economic crime Bills, now the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, provided the legislative basis for the register of overseas entities, which at long last went live on 1 August.
As much as I welcome the fact that the register is now up and running, it remains very much a work in progress. The legislation passed earlier this year was rushed through on an expedited timetable, with just two weeks of debate. The need to amend what was clearly a hastily drafted law is reflected in the changes set out in clauses 135 to 140. Before addressing the substance of the clauses, it is worth taking stock of what progress has been made in setting up the register and, more importantly, what more needs to be done. According to Government figures, some 32,000 overseas companies are required to register with Companies House by 31 January. Between them, those companies own almost 100,000 properties in the UK. It was the Minister himself, in his previous incarnation as a Back Bencher, who argued forcefully back in March for the transition period during which those 32,000 companies would be required to register to be limited to six months.
Now that we have reached the halfway point in the process, I asked the Minister in written questions how many companies have now registered. Members might have reasonably expected the number to be somewhere in the region of 16,000, or half of the 32,000 total required. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when the Minister replied to my written question saying that, in fact, only 3,214 entities had registered as of last week; in other words, just 10% of those required. If progress were to continue at such a sluggish rate, the register would not be completed until 2025. I therefore ask the Minister whether he has a magic wand, and whether he intends to use it to ensure that the remaining 90% of companies comply with the registration requirement in the next three months.
I will also ask the Minister what he thinks is the reason for the astonishingly low number of registrations to date. But the answer to that question is in fact clear: the failure of the Government to enact the new law until the situation became urgent due to the war in Ukraine meant that the regulations and statutory guidance were sloppily drafted without consultation, leaving the entire framework riddled with holes and shrouded in uncertainty.
I hope the Minister will take the opportunity we have today to clarify some of the issues. Companies House has written to entities to inform them that they need to register, but the data used to contact them came from the Land Registry. That data is, in many cases, out of date. What assessment have the Government made of the accuracy of the contact information provided by the Land Registry? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that everyone who is expected to register is at least made aware of the requirement in time for them to apply ahead of the 31 January deadline?
Will the Minister also confirm what additional resources, if any, have been made available to Companies House to support the introduction of the register? How many staff are now working to support its implementation? What preparations are the Government making to deal with companies that fail to comply before the deadline? Specifically, how will Companies House identify such companies and work quickly to impose the financial and criminal penalties that the Government have provided for? Will the Minister explain how the Government plan to deal with companies whose beneficial ownership cannot be verified? His Department’s guidance says that entities that claim to have no beneficial owner should provide information without a “managing officer”, but that term is not defined in the guidance. Can the Minister shed some light on this?
Clause 135 makes what appear to be minor technical changes to the wording of documentation to be held as part of the register. To the extent that those changes help ensure that the information on the register is giving as complete and as accurate a picture of companies beneficial ownership as possible, the changes are welcomed by the Opposition.
Kevin Hollinrake
I very much value the hon. Gentleman’s comments and reflections. There is no doubt at all that the measures are a work in progress; that is one of the reasons behind the Bill, of course. I enjoyed answering his questions in writing and we will no doubt correspond further on such matters. He is right to scrutinise the activities of Companies House, which I have sought to do as well.
Let me give a few facts that may help the hon. Gentleman. As of today, there are 3,893 registrations; that is a more up-to-date figure than the one I gave him on 11 November, which was about 3,500. That equates to about 400 in the past six or seven days, which illustrates that the number of registrations is increasing significantly. We always thought that there would be a last-minute rush to file because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are significant penalties for not doing so: up to £2,500 per day and a prison sentence of up to five years. That is the risk that those who do not comply are taking, which is pretty significant, so we always thought that there would be a last-minute rush.
To answer one or two of his other questions, eight people are working full time on the register of overseas entities and 20 are trained to handle registrations. They are deployed relevant to workload. There is no current backlog at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in this regard. A managing officer is defined in the Act as being akin to a director, secretary or manager.
Stephen Kinnock
On that point about staffing, I think the Minister’s point is that there will be a last-minute rush. Is he confident that the current staffing levels are sufficient to cope with that last-minute rush—that surge?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am not intimately involved in the management of the register. It would be interesting to see and that is a fair point. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I have asked Companies House to provide us with that information, which it has done, about the activities it is undertaking to pursue people who have not yet completed their registration. We will continue to do that. In the meantime, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the points he has raised and, indeed, on his further point about making sure that we have enough staff to deal with the last-minute rush that we anticipate.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that. Does he have any thoughts on the interface between the Land Registry and the register of beneficial owners? It appears that a lot of the information on the Land Registry is seriously outdated. What steps are being taken to address that challenge, and does he see a risk in the communication between them?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not see there being a risk of a lack of communication; they seem to be working together adequately. There is no doubt that some information is out of date. Many overseas entities have not kept their address details up to date, and many letters have been returned as undeliverable. Companies House is undertaking open-source research to try to identify up-to-date addresses, and we are working with stakeholders to raise awareness of the requirements and the deadline.
Companies House is used to dealing with large number of registrations, and we believe it can handle much larger volumes than it is receiving. The hon. Gentleman has asked some detailed questions and made some salient points that I want to follow up with Companies House in order to make sure that we can maintain the register properly, and I suggest we correspond on that basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 17th November 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 November 2022 - (17 Nov 2022)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 137 and clause 157 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
The clause amends section 15 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to align it with amendments made to section 32 during the passage of that Act and with amendments introduced by this Bill. The clause substitutes section 15 and adds proposed new sections 15A and 15B.
Proposed new section 15 restates and slightly amends the general false statement offence in section 32 of the ECTE Act to reflect changes made by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. Existing section 15 restricts the false statement offence to being committed when a person knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement in response to a notice. Proposed new sections 15A and 15B amend that offence to change the threshold to be met, by splitting it into two separate offences. That aligns with section 32 of the ECTE Act and amendments to that section introduced by the Bill.
Clause 137 amends section 32 of the ECTE Act on the general false statement offence. The effect of the amendment is that both the basic offence and the aggravated offence are expanded so that a false statement offence can be committed by a legal entity, and, where this is the case, by every officer of the entity in default. That maintains consistency with other legislation amended by the Bill. The penalty for committing the aggravated offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is also amended in line with the Judicial Review and Courts Act.
Clause 157 amends the Reports on Payments to Governments Regulations 2014. Those regulations require certain large businesses in the extractive industries to report annually their payments to overseas Governments associated with the extraction activities. The regulations were brought in to support accountability and to reduce space for corruption.
The Government are conducting a post-implementation review of the regulations to evaluate their impacts and effectiveness. However, in advance of that, the Government propose that the false statements offences and penalties in the regulations be updated to provide consistency with other offences, as previously outlined.
Clause 157 does not alter the requirement for any prosecutions for non-compliance with the 2014 regulations to be mounted or approved by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions—or, in Northern Ireland, by the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions—to ensure that they are in the public interest.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Compared with clause 135, clauses 136, 137 and 157 are more substantial. In drafting them, the Government appear to have accepted that the existing law in relation to false statement offences is too narrow to serve either as an effective deterrent or as a useful tool for law enforcement.
Clause 136 removes the requirement to prove that false information had been submitted knowingly and recklessly. That is a very high bar for prosecutors to clear, and the introduction of a broader set of criteria for these offences is therefore welcome. The changes will replace the existing false statement offence with a two-tier approach that will provide a range of options for dealing with overseas entities that either fail to provide information about beneficial ownership upon request or respond with false or misleading information.
The basic offence, which will not require evidence that a false statement had been made knowingly or recklessly, should provide a strong incentive for companies to be as rigorous as possible in ensuring that any information they provide is completely accurate. Of course, the financial penalties for such an offence will need to be set at a level sufficient to impose a significant cost on non-compliant companies. Will the Minister therefore comment on how he will ensure that penalties are set at a rate commensurate with achieving that objective?
Particularly welcome is the additional provision in clause 137 for an aggravated offence in cases where an intent to mislead can be proven, as is the extension of the changes to the reporting requirements in relation to payments to foreign Governments under clause 147. The threat of criminal convictions, with custodial sentences of up to two years, sends a strong message that fraudulent activities must not and cannot be tolerated.
Of course, in these clauses, as elsewhere in the Bill, the jury will be out on whether the changes will have any meaningful impact on economic crime until we can be sure that compliance with the law is robustly monitored and that non-compliance will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Committee will be grateful for any reassurances that the Minister can provide, especially on what preparations are being made to ensure that offences are identified and prosecuted as swiftly as possible, because he has repeatedly said that legislation without robust implementation is not worth the paper it is written on.
Kevin Hollinrake
As for the level of fines, in England and Wales they can be unlimited—level 5 on the scale.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Does he have any broader assurances around enforcement and implementation? It would be useful to get a sense of what institutional or organisational capability he envisages, and of whether that is in line with what the Bill is trying to achieve.
Kevin Hollinrake
As the hon. Gentleman knows, as we have discussed on many occasions and as I am on the record as saying, legislation without implementation is worthless. We need to ensure that offences are discovered and then prosecuted. Of course, we must ensure that the registrar, and the law enforcement agencies they work with, have sufficient capacity and resources to do the job. The Bill does not cover that directly, but I am certainly keen to ensure that happens.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for those assurances. I have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 136 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 138
Meaning of “service address”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 138 will improve the effectiveness of the register of overseas entities by defining “service address” so that it has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006. That will help those registering as overseas entities to ensure that they understand what a service address is, and that they must provide an address that meets the definition.
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 138 is another relatively minor change to the definition of a company’s service address, and it brings the definition used for the purposes of the overseas entities register into line with the language in the Companies Act. That language, the Committee will recall, defines a service address as a place where documents may be served to someone. We have already debated the potential problems of relying on such a definition in the context of amendments in which the Opposition sought to restrict and clarify what counts as an appropriate address for a company to register.
While we will not go back on all that and re-litigate those lengthy arguments, and while we will not oppose the clause, I put on the record that the Opposition do not believe that the Bill goes as far as it could and should have to prevent the fraudulent or unauthorised use of addresses. I am sure that we will come back to that on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139
Meaning of “registered overseas entity” in land registration legislation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
The clause amends the Land Registration Act 2002, Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 and the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. It will improve the effectiveness of the register of overseas entities by punishing a registered overseas entity for failing to comply with the registrar’s new power—as inserted into the Companies Act by the Bill—to require information from the entity.
Currently, an overseas entity will lose its status as a registered overseas entity if it fails to provide an annual update to the registrar. The clause adds that an overseas entity will also lose its status as a registered overseas entity if it fails to respond to a notice from the registrar requesting information. Once it is no longer considered to be a registered overseas entity, the entity will be treated as non-compliant. A non-compliant entity will find it difficult to sell, lease or raise charges over its land and cannot therefore deal freely with it.
Upon submitting the requested information to the registrar, the overseas entity will once more be compliant. However, the compliance status is not retrospective. Any person dealing with the overseas entity in the non-compliance period will be unable to register any completed transaction with the land registries. I know that all Members will join me in wanting to ensure the robustness of the register and ensure that overseas entities comply with their duties, or face tough restrictions. The clause will help Companies House to do so.
Stephen Kinnock
The clause makes some relatively minor changes to the language on the requirement to provide information requested by the registrar. The effect is to extend the existing restrictions on the ability of an overseas entity to deal with property it owns, such as by selling it, in order to apply the restrictions to companies that fail to comply with the registrar’s requests for information. The change is sensible and pragmatic, and the Opposition support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 139 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 140
Power to apply Part 1 amendments to register of overseas entities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 19—Resolving inconsistencies in the register.
Government new clause 20—Administrative removal of material from register.
Kevin Hollinrake
Section 27 of the ECTE Act allows the registrar to require an overseas entity to resolve an inconsistency in information delivered to her where it appears to be inconsistent with other information on the register of overseas entities. New clause 19 amends section 27, so that the registrar may use any information she possesses, not only that published on the register, to require an overseas entity to resolve a suspected inconsistency. That will strengthen her ability to ensure that the register is accurate and reliable.
Government new clause 20 mirrors amendments made in the Bill to equivalent sections in the Companies Act 2006 to ensure consistency between the Act and this Bill when it becomes an Act, and to enhance the registrar’s power to remove material from the register, which is limited under section 28 of the ECTE Act. She can only remove from the register information where there was a power but no duty to include it, or where it no longer appears reasonably necessary for the purposes for which the material was delivered to the registrar.
Proposed new section 28 will ensure that material that is unnecessary or does not meet proper delivery requirements can be removed at the discretion of the registrar, either unilaterally or upon application. The Secretary of State will also have the power to specify what sort of material can be removed from the register upon application, so that the scope of material eligible for removal can be modified in line with future operational needs. Under proposed new section 28A, the Secretary of State must make regulations that set out what notice the registrar should give when unilaterally removing information, and the processes to be followed in determining applications for removal.
The clause strengthens the registrar’s powers and ensures that she has all the necessary tools at her disposal to clean up the register of overseas entities proactively. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to amend the ECTE Act to apply any changes that part 1 of the Bill may make to corresponding provisions in the Companies Act. The ECTE Act contains a number of provisions that correspond to those in the Companies Act. Given the number of changes that part 1 of the Bill makes to the Companies Act, the clause is necessary to ensure that accuracy and consistency are maintained between the ECTE Act and the Companies Act, and the respective registers of overseas entities and of UK companies.
Stephen Kinnock
The clause provides for certain changes to be made to the Companies Act via regulations using Henry VIII powers, where necessary, to bring the Act into line with the provisions in part 1 of the Bill. The Government’s use of Henry VIII powers to change primary legislation has generated some criticism in other contexts, but the provision that the Government have made in this clause for the relevant regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure represents a welcome commitment to parliamentary scrutiny on their part.
Finally, the Government’s new clauses 19 and 20 have been tabled to ensure that the provisions on resolving inconsistencies in the register and on removing material from it are applied to overseas entities on the same basis as to other registered companies. Those are also sensible and pragmatic changes, which the Opposition are happy to support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 140 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 5 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
War in Ukraine: Illicit Finance
(1 year, 5 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
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, The cost of complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine, HC 168, and the Government response, HC 688.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. In speaking to the report today, I will outline a series of points made by the Committee in this report and in its 2018 “Moscow’s Gold” report. I will also talk about SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation —and the case for more action on lawfare.
Our report finds that the UK sanctions response to the war, while ambitious, was initially limited by a lack of resourcing, and the new beneficial owners register still contains loopholes that put some individuals under the threshold for having to declare beneficial ownership. That is against the public interest. The report, which I strongly endorse—I encourage folks to read it should they have time—proposes a number of reforms, including new transatlantic sanctions partnerships, so that London and New York can work more closely together, and the appropriate resourcing of enforcement agencies. Both reports, and the Intelligence and Security Committee, note the lack of funding for the National Crime Agency and other serious crime organisations in the country and that some of them are threatened by the lawyers of oligarchs—potential bad actors. We believe that to be very strongly against our national interest.
In my opinion, and I think also in the opinion of the Committee and many people engaged with this issue, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and other hon. Members, the UK and its offshore territories have for too long turned a blind eye to the transfer and concealment of illicit or semi-licit—if that is a word—wealth, and have granted a number of high-risk individuals political and judicial protections that they do not deserve.
We have built a significant industry catering to the needs of some really quite unsavoury characters. To date, vast sums of both illicit and licit finance have been recycled through the UK’s bespoke package of the financial services industry, legal services, public relations services, private eyes, estate agents, luxury assets, concierge services, visa and citizenship routes and the private education system.
Transparency International and various other bodies have estimated that the amount of wealth, criminal or otherwise, that has flowed from the former Soviet Union via corrupt German and Scandinavian banks, via UK shell companies, to tax havens—sadly, very often the UK—is probably between £500 billion and £1 trillion. That is one of the greatest flows, probably the greatest flow, of illicit wealth in the history of humanity. The fact that we in London are a core part of that flow is frankly pretty shameful.
I was discussing the issue with the great Bill Browder the other day. One of the problems is that this is not just Colombian drug cartel money; this is money that has come from deeply corrupt, but potentially legal deals. For example, an executive at one of the big state gas or oil firms at some points in the 1990s could, if they had the connections, buy an oilfield or a gasfield equivalent to the North sea, for $100,000.
By borrowing that money off organised crime or other areas, that person would effectively become a billionaire overnight, by the sometimes legal, sometimes not, but deeply unethical transfer of state assets—the privatisation of state assets using organised crime as muscle and bureaucratic connections to facilitate it. That is what has happened in the former Soviet Union—in not only Russia, but also Ukraine back in the day, especially under Yanukovych and others, and Kazakhstan. Clearly, that has enriched a small number of people in the United Kingdom, but I do not believe it has been good for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is not good for our reputation and for London as a service industry—although it is undoubtedly true that it has very considerably enriched a small number of people.
In 2018, the Foreign Affairs Committee published an excellent report under the previous Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), called “Moscow’s Gold: Russian Corruption in the UK”. That report detailed that, despite the Government’s crackdown on Russian activity in the wake of the Skripal poisoning, back before the Ukraine war, business simply continued as usual for most of Putin’s allies in the United Kingdom.
One of the depressing things for me is that I was saying this before I was an MP, so nobody was listening, and have said it as an MP—and still nobody really listened. In 2007, back in the Munich conference speech, Putin declared a new cold war against the west. We have studiously done our best to turn a blind eye because it was too difficult for western states to get their heads around the fact that, in President Putin, we had an aggressive rival who did not accept the international system, would openly challenge it and would fight wars on his borders to secure what he thought were his vital interests—we can debate that or not. After his speech the invasion of Georgia happened, and then in 2014 there was the invasion of Ukraine through proxy groups that confused some people, but should not have done.
Before, during and after those events we have had a wave of assassinations, imprisonments and arrests. I met with Alexei Navalny’s chief of staff. Navalny now may be the most high profile political prisoner in the world; he is in a detention camp in permanent solitary confinement. That is the price for challenging President Putin. Last night, I was chatting to Marina Litvinenko, the wonderful wife of Alexander Litvinenko, who was murdered in Piccadilly back in 2006—he died of radiation poisoning. The problem is that we repeatedly turned a blind eye. Our love of Russian money flowing through the financial and legal systems clouded our moral judgment. That has enabled Putin’s regime. We need to learn from those errors and mistakes.
What is the scale of the problem today? From 2008 to 2015, there were no state checks on tier 1 golden visas. At least eight individuals now sanctioned, or under investigation, are thought to have obtained citizenship through those means. They are citizens like you or me, Mr Efford. How can that be right or in the national interest? The National Crime Agency estimates that money laundering costs the UK £100 billion annually. Serious or organised crime is estimated to have a price tag of £37 billion.
Russians accused of corruption or having close links to the Putin regime have bought at least £1.5 billion worth of property in Great Britain according to Transparency International—that is a vast amount of property. One of the reasons why so many people are struggling with their mortgages is that there are vastly inflated prices for property in London and the south-east. That is in part because it is seen as an easy way to launder money: to pay over the odds for property and then to sell. Even if it is then sold at a loss of 10% or 20%, these people have laundered—legalised—a vast amount of corrupt and criminal, or semi-corrupt and semi-criminal, money.
That £1.5 billion is part of nearly £5.5 billion worth of property in the UK that has been purchased through offshore shell companies. That problem happened under new Labour and the coalition with the Liberal Democrats. What on earth is this country doing allowing offshore shell companies to be vehicles to buy property? It is just wrong. It is wrong that so many people close to Putin own so much property in this country. It is wrong that so many offshore vehicles have been used. What on earth are we doing allowing that to happen, and what on earth are we going to do to stop it? I would love the Minister to reassure us, rather than just saying that we are concerned about it.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I congratulate him. I want to be clear that this is not just an issue about Russia. In my constituency and elsewhere, the red princes and princesses of communist China are buying up property and inflating prices. We should not just focus on Russia when we talk about illicit finance.
Bob Seely
I thank the hon. Member for his very sensible point. There is absolutely a wider issue. As well as shell companies, there are vast developments on the south side of the river, around the US embassy, where entire blocks are being bought up as investment options rather than being used to provide housing for Londoners. That is shocking, especially because we have a housing shortage. There is a wider argument on reform of our housing in the UK for giving options first to allow ordinary folks to be buying it, rather than—as much as we love them—Hong Kong, Chinese or Indonesian investors to block buy endless numbers of flat and rent them out or never have them occupied.
I was going to talk a bit about the Azerbaijani laundromat. Between 2012 and 2014, about £3 billion went through UK shell companies as part of the so-called Azerbaijani laundromat; funding was dispersed from Azerbaijani officials to various outlets in this country. As well as that, London’s open economic environment has been a key centre for raising finance for companies or individuals over whom there are now very considerable question marks.
In 2017, En+ was floated on the London stock exchange, raising £1.5 billion from international investors in an initial public offering. We now know—well, we knew at the time—that En+ was very closely associated with Oleg Deripaska, despite his ownership of companies linked to supplying Russian military materials and sanctioned Russian shareholders. He himself is now sanctioned, I believe. En+ and Oleg Deripaska were part of a considerable lobbying effort by a former Member of the House of Lords—a former Conservative Minister, as much as it shames me to say it—to separate Deripaska from En+ in frankly pretty questionable circumstances.
Shortly after the Skripal poisoning, Russia continued to sell Russian sovereign debt in London, facilitated by the sanctioned Russian bank VTB. While our financial services provide anonymity to those who wish to invest, many UK legal firms have sought to further silence those who question the origin of investments.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I agree with everything he has to say. On sanctions, he will know, not least from the talk he did yesterday afternoon with a group of Ukrainians, that there is a big call in Ukraine at the moment to turn the freezing sanctions into confiscation sanctions, and to use the money we are holding, which would presumably otherwise be given back to the oligarchs, for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Would my hon. Friend comment on that?
Bob Seely
I would love to; we were debating that yesterday at the Henry Jackson Society with Bill Browder and a number of other people. My hon. Friend is welcome to correct me on this, but I think Canada has prepared an Act to enable that frozen money effectively to be given to the Ukrainian authorities or set up in some kind of international fund to help reconstruction in Ukraine.
Mr Djanogly
The Act is quite straightforward. By way of clarification, it takes the existing sanctions legislation, including the Canadian Magnitsky law, and latches on to that the ability to change freezing orders into confiscation orders. It is a relatively simple way of going about what could be a very complicated process.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am pleased to see this report and the recommendations in it. I have been talking to Ukrainian MPs since the visit that he and I made to Kyiv. One of the biggest issues they have raised is about not just having sanctions but having a sanctions regime that ratchets up internationally. The sanctions partnership is absolutely essential.
Just now in the House, the Prime Minister was congratulating the work done already on sanctions, but we cannot stop there. We need to move on. The ramping up of sanctions and the seizing—not just freezing—of assets are absolutely being called for by Ukrainian politicians and people.
To put into context the sums the hon. Gentleman has been referring to, right now there is a $38 billion budget gap for the running of Ukraine and billions also need to be paid back in reparations. This solution is much needed and would restore the reputation of London as a financial centre, not a money laundering centre.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate; I will speak for a wee minute in support of him. My understanding is that in earlier questions in the Chamber, the Government indicated that they were prepared to look at—I am not sure they committed themselves entirely—not just seizing the goods belonging to Russian oligarchs, but using that money for a purpose. The purpose we all asked for in the Chamber that day was for the money to be given to Ukraine. Would there not be some poetic justice if Russian money was used to directly help the Ukrainians?
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the things we were discussing yesterday was quite how that could happen. The initiative is being led by Bill Browder, who has championed the cause of Sergei Magnitsky ever since he was tortured and murdered 13 years ago yesterday. Ten years ago—a decade ago this month—the late, great John McCain brought in the first Magnitsky laws in the United States, and everyone else across the globe, or at least 35 nations, has followed suit.
The person dealing with this issue in Ukraine is a very powerful Ukrainian politician called Kira Rudik, who was also with us yesterday. She is in London today. She is trying to get a global coalition to do just what we have been discussing. I hope that we will soon have a draft law here that we can send to Government, debate and put down in some form to say, “These are the next steps.”
I pay tribute to Kyle Parker, too, who was also in the discussions we had yesterday. He is great man. A senior congressional staffer—these people have much more power in the US than they tend to in the UK—he wrote the Magnitsky Act and worked with Congressmen and Senators to get it through both Houses in the US system. We should be doing the same here.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs—it is a bit of a mouthful—are effectively the abuse of law by the rich to intimidate journalists, campaigners and others. SLAPPs are absolutely part and parcel of this system. Imagine the great caravan of wealth that flowed from the former Soviet Union to the tax havens of the Caribbean. It needed facilitators, which were the financial services companies, some of which are corrupt German and Scandinavian banks. I think their names are out there: Deutsche Bank, in Estonia, I think, and one or two others.
The system also needed attack dogs to protect the flow of that vast caravan of sometimes criminal wealth, and those were the legal firms. Those lawyers effectively built a business model of legalised intimidation whereby journalists and campaigners can be threatened. If someone in the Soviet Union, or Russia post the collapse of the Soviet Union, wanted to stop a journalist from trying to investigate them, they would ultimately just kill them. In the UK and the west, that is more difficult—not impossible, but it is more difficult to kill people and get away with it.
People are not physically destroyed in this country; instead, the legal system is used to financially destroy them. That has sadly happened to a number of people, including Charlotte Leslie, a former colleague of ours, and the wonderful journalist Catherine Belton. Various campaign groups have also been targeted. Most recently, Chatham House has been a target. Sadly, I understand it has given in to threats and is having to rewrite some of its reports.
This business model was set up to service the needs of the aggressive rich and powerful, including organised criminals and oligarchs, who did not want their affairs investigated. The three methods were the abuse of libel law, the abuse of privacy law—the right to privacy, meaning no one else can look into someone’s affairs—and data protection. The aim in all the cases was to mount up such staggering costs that even a technical victory would destroy the opponent, render them bankrupt or destroy their reputation. If they were a journalist, the aim was to make a newspaper or publishing house invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in defending them against the vast sums that oligarchs were willing to throw at them to make their lives difficult.
A slightly different case is that of the Maltese corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. It was a great privilege to recently meet her son, who works in the UK media. At the time she was murdered, she was facing 47 libel lawsuits, almost all of which were from UK law firms. That is staggering: before she was physically destroyed, she was being psychologically and financially destroyed.
I have discussed Catherine Belton and the costs of SLAPPs. My final point is that it is extraordinary that, as Spotlight on Corruption and Global Integrity have found, law firms in the UK currently face almost zero risk of criminal prosecution for money laundering, and there is a very limited prospect of their facing any meaningful fines. I was told privately that a number of UK law firms support that criminal money-laundering activity. Yet almost nothing is done, and almost nothing is investigated.
What are the solutions? First, close the loopholes in Companies House. I know that the Government have made strides on that, but there is more to be done. The right hon. Member for Barking is working with a number of Members on both sides of the House to tighten up the regulations. If the Government could be sympathetic, we would be grateful. Secondly, the UK’s economic crime enforcement system remains under-resourced. It needs to be better resourced, so that we can fight the bad guys and girls better.
Thirdly, we need to better supervise the so-called professional enablers, so that they cannot effectively operate outside money laundering regulations. Fourthly, as we tighten up regulations here, we need to expand our UK regulations to British overseas territories. It is absolute nonsense that criminal and organised crime and tax havens benefit people in the Caribbean.
We very much welcome the Ministry of Justice’s response to the call for evidence on SLAPPs and its proposals for legislative reform. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and I—and perhaps others—will present a Bill on SLAPPs, so that a Bill is ready when the Government want to introduce one; we love saving Government time, and increasing the productivity of Government and politicians. We will provide a model for SLAPPs law. It will ensure that SLAPPs are disposed of more quickly in court, that the costs of being attacked by SLAPPs are kept to a minimum, and that the costs for SLAPP filers are higher, which will potentially deter further SLAPPs. There are other measures, but I will not go into them now.
In summary, as a result of the UK’s economic permissiveness, we have for too long become a safe haven for kleptocrats. That has to end. The situation is getting better, but it is a shame that it took a major war in eastern Europe for things to change dramatically. We take pride in the openness and transparency of speech, and in the UK’s open economic system. However, that freedom of speech and open economic system must be better protected. A laissez-faire, criminalised free-for-all is not an open economic system; it is a corruption of that system. We need to clamp down on the sources of illicit finance coming through the UK. I urge the Government to continue reforming Companies House, to resource our enforcement bodies, and to read and take in the many excellent recommendations in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to rise with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the Liaison Committee for providing time for the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on his excellent opening speech. I also thank the Foreign Affairs Committee Clerks for notes in advance of the debate, and the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition for its excellent briefing. I speak as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and also as someone who is just glad to be reunited with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I knew he would be here today.
The FAC report, “The cost of complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine”, in October made many recommendations, some of which have been touched on. Those that have not been mentioned include the need to implement beneficial ownership rules and to reform Companies House, including by giving the registrar powers to verify information and to remove corporate entities for wrongdoing and provide robust identity verification mechanisms. It also recommends making enforcement more effective by reforming unexplained wealth orders, or by at least assessing why they have not been as effective as the Government originally intended. The report also suggests making better use of the exchange of notes process in relation to companies incorporated overseas, reforming corporate criminal liability laws and whistleblower legislation, professionalising the sanctions unit of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and making more concerted efforts to seize assets that have been frozen by sanctions.
The Government’s response is, at best, tepid. They say that they are aware of the security threat of illicit finance and suggest that the war in Ukraine is the driving political force for action, but that leaves many people who are focused on this issue concerned that no effort was made previously and wondering why it has taken a war in Europe to drive reform and action in this area, when it has been clear to so many that illicit finance has been entering the UK at colossal levels for some time.
The Government’s response is largely being taken forward in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, but there is broad concern that it does not go far enough. For example, the Government have committed to reform of Companies House, but the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition says that they need to go much further to prevent UK-registered companies from providing a veneer of legitimacy for secretive offshore networks, by ensuring transparency over shareholders, partners and members. The Government have acknowledged the risk associated with opaque corporate ownership, but the Bill in its current form does not make the changes that would prohibit private limited companies, limited liability partnerships, limited partnerships or Scottish limited partnerships from having opaque corporate partners, and it must go further.
The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition also asked the Government to improve the register’s accuracy by verifying and publishing shareholder information. The information it holds on shareholders needs to be transparent and accurate, including names, company numbers and addresses—all the criteria that we assume is held but is not. The Bill also needs to give Companies House the power to review verification documents provided by third-party agents—usually trust and company service providers—because without that level of work, Companies House’s data will simply not be robust enough.
The Government have said that they will undertake a review of whistleblower protections and are assessing time and scope. It would be really good to have an update on that, because there is a lot of concern that, while journalists may be covered, they are not the only people who warrant protection. Journalists rely on whistleblowers inside companies and organisations, and they should be the focus of further and greater protection. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us whether the Government are considering introducing a whistle- blowing Bill to protect those who seek to speak out against or uncover economic crimes and wrongdoing. That is not covered by current Government plans, so I hope the Government will follow through on their commitment to review the UK’s whistleblowing framework and present the timeline and scope of that review.
The Government say that they accept the Committee’s recommendation to establish a professional and permanent sanctions group within the FCDO. However, the global anti-corruption sanctions regime, which the UK introduced its in April 2021, has been used significantly fewer times than the 30 designations a year that the Government originally envisaged. Why has the performance been so much worse than expected? What steps are being taken to improve it, when will they be implemented, and when will they be put to use?
In response to the Committee’s recommendation to grant additional funding for law enforcement, all the Government have offered is money to fund the reform of Companies House, and they have said that the Home Office will set out an annual report to Parliament on unexplained wealth orders. Frankly, that is pathetic, and today’s statement means that the uplift in the Serious Fraud Office’s core resources budget is simply not good enough to match the level of crime in this country. The UK spends £850 million a year on funding core national level economic crime enforcement bodies, but economic crime costs the UK £290 billion a year. The National Crime Agency has suffered a 4.2% decrease in its core budget over the past five years, yet fraud has risen dramatically. It accounts for 40% of all recorded crime, yet fraud prosecutions have fallen from 42,000 in 2011 to 13,500 in 2021—a 67% decrease in a decade. The Government are simply lagging far behind the scale of the problem. The NCA needs resourcing to the scale required, and the Minister needs to raise the Government’s game.
The Committee has put forward additional asks. Given the speed with which the two economic crime Bills were put before the House, does the Minister anticipate additional legislation to rectify any gaps? Will the Government be reviewing the implementation of the two Acts? When does the Minister expect to see measurable outcomes from changes to resourcing the fight against economic crime? What outcomes is he prioritising? How does the new sustainable funding model support long-term planning to support those goals? How does public-private information sharing feed into those enforcement aims?
It would be good to hear from the Minister what progress is being made on suspicious activity reports reform. The Government have mentioned that they are interested in that, but we have not seen action on it yet. It would also be good to hear from the Minister whether the Government’s understanding of the threat of economic crime has changed. Do they see illicit finance as primarily a criminal issue or a security threat?
Golden visas—the tier 1 visa scheme—allowed a recipient to stay in the UK for three years in exchange for a minimum £1 million investment, but they became a vehicle for much laundering of corrupt money in the UK because of a lack of checks. That scheme was shut in February in response to the full-scale invasion—the second invasion—of Ukraine, but a review of the scheme, commissioned by the Home Office in March 2018, has still not been published. The Committee called for the review to be published without delay. The Government have said that they will publish it “in the near future”. I really hope that the Minister can tell us what is happening. If the Government are at all serious on this issue, they will be able to tell us today when that report will be published.
The Government did not even bother to respond to the Committee’s recommendation that they review visas issued since 2015. Have the Government concluded that none of the outstanding visa holders pose a security threat? Especially given that the Government tell us that they have changed their policy towards both Russia and China in recent weeks, will the Government be reviewing that decision? The Government have not responded to whether they plan to review those granted visas who had gone on to gain residency or citizenship. The Home Office should set out how it will deal with people with corrupt or criminal sources of wealth who have already received indefinite leave to remain or subsequent citizenship through the golden visa route. Those visas may still need to be withdrawn and other measures taken.
It would be good to hear what the Government plan to do, especially in the face of those of us who deal with the Home Office week in, week out, on behalf of constituents desperate to get family members into this country to work here, to contribute here and to care for other family members who are sick here. I have constituents who have had family members pass away while waiting for visa application decisions. I recently saw a constituent who has waited more than a decade for an asylum application to be decided—while corrupt millionaires have been able to gain access under a Government-sponsored programme, which is, frankly, simply despicable.
The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition says that 6,312 tier 1 visas—more than half of all golden visas—are being reviewed for possible national security risks. That is the scale of the problem. The Government opened the door to this. By April 2022, 10 Russian nationals subject to sanctions had previously been granted golden visas. That is what this Government have permitted in this country. In the light of today’s news from the director general of MI5 about potential attacks in this country from Iranian agents, could the Minister tell us whether any of these golden visas were issued to Iranian nationals?
How many people got this red-carpet treatment when they should have had the rug pulled from under their feet? And how are the Government now quantifying the level of damage that these visas, and their approach, have caused? The message sent across the globe has been that London and the UK have been open to blood- soaked money from wherever it comes. Frankly, secret meetings with agents of other countries—this goes right to the top of Government under the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)— have simply not been documented. This is a Government who have undermined national security on so many levels and damaged the UK.
The Government have made some reforms to tier 1 visas since 2015, but there remain glaring loopholes, including one that allowed 100 golden visa applicants to borrow money from a firm owned by Russian nationals in order to make investments that ultimately went back to Russia. How are the Government penalising those involved, and how are they seeking to capture the money that should have been here? Can the Minister give any further clarity on timing for the review of the whistleblower legislation?
I have three final points, which are much wider. The first is on corporate criminal liability. The Committee said that the Foreign Office should work across Government to encourage reform of outdated and ineffective corporate criminal liability laws that mean that it is difficult to hold large companies to account for economic crime. In response, all the Government said was that they had commissioned a report from the Law Commission and were considering further action. The initial call for evidence by the Government concluded in March 2017—five and a half years ago. The Government then reported on this in November two years ago. And the Law Commission’s options paper was published in June 2022. I hope the Minister can give us today an update on progress, because frankly it looks like the Government are not even dragging their feet; they have not even got out of bed.
I have already touched on unexplained wealth orders. Since the passage of the emergency legislation this year, only one unexplained wealth order has been applied for by law enforcement. In total, only nine UWOs relating to four cases have been obtained by the NCA since the tool was introduced in January 2018, and just one unsuccessful application for a UWO left the NCA facing £1.5 million in legal costs. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight touched on the cost imbalance and the resourcing issue. The problem is much wider, because aid cuts have led to a £3.6 million budget cut for law enforcement bodies tackling illicit finance and doing international corruption work, and have resulted in the target for the use of UWOs based on aid-funded investigations being reduced to zero. I ask the Government to increase their ambition. Through the Government, law enforcement should be able to obtain UWOs, and they should have a boost in resources to fund the expert staff and technical capabilities that they require.
The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition suggests hypothecation to boost resources and capability. It suggests that funds generated through law enforcement activities be reinvested in law enforcement budgets to fund things such as the state-of-the-art IT infrastructure and data analysis capabilities required to do the job. Law enforcement bodies are hamstrung at the moment and are desperate for resources and capability.
Between 2016 and 2021, law enforcement bodies responsible for fighting economic crime in the UK brought in £3.9 billion in confiscation and forfeiture orders and fines. If that money had been reinvested in the agencies on top of their core budgets, an additional £748 million a year would have been provided to help tackle the problem. That is nearly double the resources that the Government currently provide, so I hope the Minister will respond to the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition’s recommendation.
SLAPPs allow oligarchs to supress evidence of their corruption and protect their reputation through vexatious litigation, unfortunately and very sadly through British law firms, against those seeking to tell truth to power, including journalists and publishers. The pressure of excessive costs coupled with the personal strain of legal threats hampers the ability of investigative journalists, academics and campaigners to shine a light on evidence of illicit wealth. Between March and May, the Government called for evidence on SLAPPs, and concluded in their report that they intend to pursue legislative reform at the earliest opportunity. That requires significant change, so will the Minister outline how the Government will take forward that well overdue legislation? Will they introduce early dismissal so that courts can dismiss any case that is in the public interest, and cost protection for defendants? I hope the Minister will tell us when the Government will legislate and, more importantly, when those powers will be in place to protect those who seek to shine a light on illicit finance in the UK, which is a growing problem.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to speak about the Foreign Affairs Committee report on illicit finance and the war in Ukraine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for introducing this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).
Illicit finance is not new or geographically isolated, but Putin’s war on Ukraine has shone a public light on the massive scale of economic crime. We know that Russian money is being laundered through the UK, and in the view of the report it is more likely than not being used to fund the war in Ukraine. We cannot and must not allow Britain’s financial intuitions to continue to be used to house or move dirty money.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report sets out in stark terms that there is a cost of complacency. There is a cost to our global financial standing and our national security, and a cost in lives, when laundered money is used to pay for war. Continuing this complacency and doing nothing is not an option.
Valuing, listening to and protecting those who speak out to uncover corruption is part of the answer. I particularly welcome the Committee’s recommendation that:
“The FCDO should…push for a Whistleblowing Bill to offer protection to those who speak out against, or uncover, economic crimes and other wrongdoing.”
It is often journalists who investigate and uncover critical evidence of corruption. They frequently rely on informed insiders—whistleblowers—who have usually been frustrated by failed attempts to raise the alarm internally. I welcome the Government’s commitment to stop the use of SLAPPs, as has been set out so well by the two previous speakers. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to upholding the fundamental democratic values of free speech and a free press, ending the abuse of the UK legal system and defending investigations in the public interest.
As the report points out, journalists are not the only truth tellers who need protection. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I am campaigning for a whistleblowing Bill, and in the previous parliamentary Session I promoted a private Member’s Bill to create an office of the whistleblower. I note that in their response to the Committee’s report, the Government point to existing legislation designed to protect whistleblowers—the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, known as PIDA—stating that it provides
“protection to those who speak up in the public interest.”
However, PIDA, the UK’s current whistleblowing legislation, applies only to some employees, not all workers or anyone else who may reasonably learn of impropriety or criminal activity, such as trustees, volunteers, family members or customers, or others in the supply chain. It is limited. Moreover, a person who speaks out receives only limited protection from the harm or detriment that often arises when they are bullied or harassed out of their work as a result of their whistleblowing. That is no comfort for people considering speaking out where illicit finance, rogue regimes and criminal gangs are involved—the risks are simply too high.
I firmly believe that the way to uncover economic crime and illicit finance is to encourage people to report wrongdoing. Research shows that more than 40% of fraud, for instance, is detected through whistleblowers, but for people to come forward, they must feel safe. Although I was glad that the Government reiterated their commitment to reviewing the whistleblowing frame- work, I am disappointed that the scope and timing remain under consideration. The Committee report expressed a concern that the Government lack
“sufficient resources and expertise to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of these sanctions”.
If resources to do that are lacking, they will also be lacking to collect and investigate those whistleblowing tips. That is yet another reason for including whistleblower provisions in our fight against illicit finance.
For those reasons, I am calling for a unified office that will set standards for whistleblowing to which every organisation, industry and Government will comply. It will ensure that they put in place proper mechanisms to receive, examine and escalate reports where appropriate and work with law enforcement where there is evidence of wrongdoing. The Committee recognises the need for a whistleblowing Bill. I am being helpful and urging the Minister and the Government, in the light of this important report, to get behind my whistleblowing Bill, which I promoted in the previous Session, but which fell due to time. It is ready and waiting to be taken up, and I would love the Government to bring it forward as part of their legislative agenda.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to speak in this debate? I commend the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson); I am pleased to follow her. I agree wholeheartedly with her comments about whistleblowing and the importance of having that Bill in place. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on that, because it is a positive step in the right direction. There are many things in this House we would like to do—we have ideas, we bring forward Bills, and they are not always accepted—but that Bill is certainly one that would be worthy of acceptance.
I commend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for setting the scene so well. He has a vast knowledge, and I mean that genuinely. I very much look forward to his contributions in the Chamber. They are always detailed, informational and evidential, which I think helps us all—it helps me, anyway—to better understand things, and I appreciate that. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) speaking as well. He also has a depth of knowledge on this subject. We have had exceptional contributions today and others will follow, whenever the shadow Ministers speak as well.
I thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their findings in the second report into illicit finance and the war in Ukraine. Monday’s debate was the first on Ukraine that I could not attend, primarily because I was stuck at Belfast City airport and could not get away because of the fog and all the other things that were happening that day. However, I have spoken in nearly every debate involving Ukraine. I had a deep passion and interest in Ukraine long before the Russians invaded, because churches in my constituency have done missionary work and provided humanitarian aid in Ukraine for many years, way back into the 1990s. Indeed, I sponsored a Christian family in Ukraine back then.
It is clear, given the levels of illicit money laundering by the Russian kleptocracy, that the UK’s response was somewhat underprepared. This debate has followed a theme: what have we done to respond? In all honesty, the answer is probably, “Not as much as we should have.” Ultimately, to combat illicit crime from Russia, we must commit to a transatlantic partnership, so I welcome the findings of the report and the Government’s reply. At least they have understood the issue, but I do not think they went far enough. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to that, and I am certainly going to say the same thing.
At the very start of the invasion, Transparency International identified more than £1.5 billion of UK property owned by Russians accused of financial crime or with links to the Kremlin, and that will have increased since then. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) referred to how Government need to be able to take all the assets they seize and turn them into financial assistance to help the Ukrainians to rebuild their land, their country, their buildings and their infrastructure. In all honesty, I believe that that £1.5 billion—probably more now—would go a long way to helping rebuild Ukraine. It would be poetic justice if those moneys were used for that purpose.
We want calls for action. In 2019, the “Moscow’s Gold: Russian Corruption in the UK” report found the laundering of dirty money from Russia to be an instrumental problem. Until the invasion of Ukraine, there was unfortunately little commitment to tackling the problem. Through many sanctions and Bills brought forward to Parliament, we have learned our lesson about taking lax approaches to corrupt and autocratic regimes. It seems there have never been so many autocratic regimes in the world as today. The report being discussed today also stated:
“By the Government’s own measure, ‘there is a realistic possibility that the scale of money laundering impacting the UK annually is hundreds of billions of pounds’.”
The £1.5 billion I referred to earlier on is almost just picking the scab of the real corruption.
Unexplained wealth orders were used in 2021 to recover the proceeds of illicit crime. In Northern Ireland, England and Wales, £219 million was recovered. In a debate in the Chamber on that very issue, I referred to a case of money that came from Latvia and right through Germany, France and Belgium into England and it ended up in Northern Ireland. It was a massive amount of money—more than £200 million—and an example of corruption on a very high scale.
While unexplained wealth orders are a welcome move in recovering the proceeds of illicit crime, London has unfortunately become a hub for illicit money. Where does that leave the smaller regions, such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where it will become increasingly attractive for launderers to invest money? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to some of the ways in which that money can be invested in an attempt to legitimise it through a legitimate company, yet that money is still economically and criminally wrong.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill has been introduced to fight the flows of dirty money. I previously raised with the Secretary of State the fact that Companies House was identified as taking part in 89 economic crime incidents, which came to a total sum of £137 billion of potential economic damage. The Bill must introduce regulatory objectives to tackle illicit finance across this United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that it introduces new powers for robust verification requirements to ensure that business ownership across the UK is as transparent as possible. That has to be good news. When the Government do something well, I like to give them credit for that.
We must not let it slip our minds that Kremlin-backed oligarchs rely on the western transatlantic system. As I mentioned earlier, we need to protect our good relationships with other western allies to ensure that proactive steps are taken to reprimand the enablers and their proxies to whom illegal wealth is transferred. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight outlined how that is done, the procedures that take place and the ways that people cover their tracks.
The integrated review named Russia as
“the most acute threat to our security”,
and I believe that to be the case. China is undoubtably trying to catch Russia and is biting at its heels. Russia has proceeded to diminish every aspect of Ukraine’s domestic security. I am proud of our Government and Ministers’—even in the Chancellor’s statement earlier—continued commitment to Ukraine. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is leading the way and all the other countries—I say it with great respect to them—have almost been shamed into matching what the United Kingdom is doing. The Foreign Affairs Committee report concluded:
“The Government cannot afford to rely on rhetoric if it is to deliver on its commitment to tackle illicit finance”
so let’s get it done. We have been seen to be under-resourced in the past and that has led to our own constituents, including many of mine, losing their hard-earned money.
Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland prides itself on the rule of law and the protection of our economy and citizens. If we do not put in the necessary means and resources, we allow Putin and his illegal regime to take advantage of the freedoms of the western world. That must stop. Like the hon. Gentleman and others, I call on the FCDO and the Minister to ensure the immediate enactment of this Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill for the betterment of our economy and the protection of our assets from Russian interference. The quicker that happens, the quicker the world will be a better place.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Efford. I am glad to wind up for the SNP in this important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely)—he is a leading expert in the House on these issues. As ever, he made a powerful contribution and I commend him on his efforts. I thank the Foreign Affairs Committee for this important piece of work. I am here partly on behalf of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who is presently engaged in a by-election in Glasgow.
If we boil down my speech to its essence, the SNP supports the report and wants to see it all implemented. I urge the Minister to show a bit more ambition and oomph than we have seen thus far in the official Government response to the report. I appreciate that there is collective responsibility, but I stress to the Minister that this is a cross-party report and these are cross-party recommendations. Where there are serious efforts to tackle this stuff, the SNP will play our part in that coalition. There is a real opportunity for the Government to make meaningful progress on these important matters, because we do have a problem. There has been a triptych of reports from the House: the “Moscow's Gold” report, which has been mentioned; the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s Russia report; and this report, which sits alongside both of those previous efforts.
The report broadens the point, which has been well made, that we are not just speaking about dirty Russian money. Dirty money is dirty money, wherever it comes from. Dirty money corrodes and hides in the shadows. The fewer shadows we have in our economic governance the better. I speak as a former financial services solicitor in the City, so I am familiar with the ways these rules can be gotten around. We are dealing with some of the most slippery, best-advised and richest people in society who are really good at getting round rules. We need to make sure that there are as few loopholes and grey areas as possible, because, as we have heard, the numbers are vast. The UK’s financial and professional services sectors have played a key role in bankrolling the Kremlin regime, and other regimes. That should really shame us all and give us all pause.
Illicit finance needs to be tackled. London is a major international finance centre, but it is also an international dirty finance centre, and I include Edinburgh in that and various other place in the UK, as well. This is a common effort that we need to work upon.
I do not propose to rehearse the points that have already been made, but I will pick out a few things on which I urge the UK Government to act. And I pledge SNP support in this House and the co-operation of the Scottish authorities as well, because much of this matter is reserved as opposed to devolved, and Holyrood cannot touch it.
On the golden visa review, others have called for the review to publish. Yes, the scheme has ended, but important lessons need to be learned and some individuals still give cause for concern. We need to better ventilate that issue and see that review come forward.
On the slightly misnamed Scottish limited partnerships, people should not let the name fool them; the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament cannot regulate these legal vehicles and we need to see much greater transparency about them. The fact that we can see vast tracts of the highlands, including parts of my constituency in Stirling, being owned by opaque trusts, whereby we are not sure who the ultimate beneficial owner is, is absurd. We need to get that system fixed.
I warmly endorse the comments that made about whistleblowers, but I also endorse the recommendations in the report. We need to see greater protection for whistleblowers who bring to light facts that are of public interest. I also warmly endorse the points about SLAPPs and judicial intimidation. If the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is looking for a SNP name for his Bill, count me in; I will happily swing in with those efforts.
Regarding overseas territories, at every point that we have discussed the sanctions regime on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine—I have been involved in all those discussions—I have made the point about ensuring that there is complementarity and that there are no gaps with the overseas territories. I have been assured that there is neither complacency nor such gaps, but I am still not convinced that that is entirely the case. We need a lot more due diligence to ensure that the overseas territories are joined up and in lockstep with what we are trying to achieve because, as I have already said, some of the best-advised and slipperiest people in the world are really good at finding loopholes where they exist, or indeed creating them where they can.
There is also the point about the professional enablers: the public relations professionals; the lawyers; the accountants; and the others who have facilitated malfeasance. We need to see the professional bodies step up as well, but we also need the Government to expect much better of them. As I say, I now speak as a former solicitor, but I am still aware that there are gaps that can be exploited.
We also need to better finance the organs of Government that deal with economic crime. Good work is under way, and a lot of good people are working on this issue, but they need more support and more resources.
In closing, Companies House’s role should be that of an active, muscular regulator with teeth. However, it is not that at the moment. That is not a criticism of anybody in Companies House, but it is not doing what it needs to be able to do. It needs more resources and more powers to do it.
I hope that I have struck a consensual note in my contribution. Not much can be gained from a party political bidding war about which party is dirtiest or which party is the most in hock to dirty money. There is a common effort that we need to work upon here; it is in the interests of all our citizens to get this problem fixed. If the Minister here today is going to give these plans a bit more oomph than we have seen to date, he will have the SNP’s support in doing so.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I think it is for the first time and it is lovely to see you in the Chair.
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is not currently present, and the other Committee members who have been here today: my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and, of course, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who knows Russia well and has been talking about these issues since before February 2022. I am sure the Committee will be as concerned as I am about the events of recent days. My thoughts and my condolences are with the people of both Poland and Ukraine at this immensely challenging time for both countries.
Labour is unwavering in its commitment to NATO, to Europe’s collective security and to providing long-term support to Ukraine and its people as they put everything into the defence of their country and the values of democracy, freedom, peace, security and self-determination. Labour also maintains that the bravery, courage and resolve of Ukrainians must be met with commensurate action, not only in our direct support to President Zelensky and his people but by eradicating Russian influence from our economy and our politics.
The Select Committee report states:
“The Integrated Review named Russia as the ‘most acute threat to our security.’”
It should not require a war on our continent for there finally to be the impetus to do something about illicit Russian finance, which has polluted our society and economy for decades. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) have worked consistently on the issue in the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I was a member of that group before I became a Front Bencher—or rather, in my time between being a Front Bencher and a Back Bencher.
Years of inaction have seen our capital dubbed “Londongrad”. My hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) were quite right to talk about the heavy influence that inaction has had on property prices for Londoners trying desperately to get on to the housing ladder, and the way in which prices have rushed up, particularly in the current climate. We are now reaping the impact of hundreds of billions of pounds having been laundered here in the UK, much of which will be being deployed to fund Putin’s war machine.
The Labour party has been pressing the Government for action for years and has raised the issue of illicit finance on the Floor of the House dozens of times. At our conference in 2021, prior to the invasion of Ukraine, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), then shadow Foreign Secretary, committed to a specific taskforce to look at the matter in depth.
Even now, it is fair to assert that the measures adopted in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 do not go far enough to tackle the problem. The report says that the steps taken by the Government since February
“are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation”,
brought about by years of apathy. The report catalogues a litany of errors and shortfalls and the Government’s unwillingness to bring forward legislation and the culture change required, which could truly stem the flow of dirty money, deal with its enablers and provide sufficient resourcing to enforce any changes in the law.
This challenge did not originate in February 2022; the Opposition have been calling for action on it for years. We have known of Putin’s corrupt regime—and the risks that it has posed for our region and globally—since 2008, when he flagrantly broke international law to invade Georgia to retain control over the Caucasus, after brutally repressing the people of Chechnya. He did it again in Crimea in 2014, and later unleashed a brutal attack against the people of Syria. Who can forget the images of blown-out Idlib and how similar many of the bombed-out cities in the east of Ukraine appear now?
As well as Putin’s heinous war against Ukraine and his bid to wipe it from the map—the latest manifestation of almost two decades of relentless warmongering at the expense of civilians around the world—we are also aware of the threat posed by Russia as a state of sprawling kleptocracy. Oligarchs have exploited our economic set-up to expand their wealth, protect their assets and further the Kremlin’s nefarious intent. As the report highlights, we are still nowhere near where we need to be to remedy years of inaction in rowing back the tides of polluted Russian finance.
On the substance of the report, I am sure that the Minister will cite the 2022 Act, which Labour supported and welcomed earlier this year as a step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking tabled amendments and brought improvements to the Bill. The report rightly asserts that although the legislation makes welcome changes in some areas, it represents only a fraction of the changes needed to address the systemic vulnerability to Russia’s illicit finance. It was also lacking in reforms to Companies House, which are still not sorted, and it failed entirely to get to grips with cryptoassets to strengthen anti-money laundering regimes.
To inject a little bit of humour into this rather dry topic, I am sure Members will be interested in the Royal United Services Institute video in which an individual called “Mr Crooked Crook Crook” bowled up to Companies House to register his business and was welcomed with open arms. RUSI being that worried about a dodgy crook trying to register their company with Companies House highlights, with some humour, the issue that we face.
Even the limited progress that the legislation offers is hampered by the fact that the Government are not sufficiently resourcing the UK bodies that are tasked with enforcing the changes. The report finds that only 0.042% of GDP is spent on funding national-level economic crime and enforcement bodies. As a result, money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the past five years. We have talked about the issue regularly in the House, yet the opposite seems to have occurred in terms of the number of successful money laundering prosecutions.
The existing budget for economic crime law enforcement is £400 million, with only £100 million of that coming from the Treasury. That appears to be entirely inadequate. The National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and other bodies urgently need more funding to row back years of inactivity in this area, protect legitimate business and safeguard our national security.
We must also do far more to oppose those who seek to use their wealth to avoid scrutiny, skirt the law and remain beyond the reach of those who enforce it. The non-governmental organisation Spotlight on Corruption highlights the fact that money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the past five years. The UK is by far the most frequent country of origin for SLAPPs, with 31% of cases originating in the UK.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned the famous author Catherine Belton; I recommend that everybody goes and buys her book for Christmas. “Putin’s People” comes highly recommended by members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It considers the connections between kleptocracy, the UK and Londongrad, and the serious action that needs to be taken. Unfortunately, the judicial system was used to bully her publisher, as the hon. Member said. That is something we need to stop. It is a waste of court time and we must tighten things up and not allow such disgraceful acts to occur.
Although Labour welcomes changes brought in through the statutory instrument debated in October, which introduced a cap on the damages that oligarchs can win through protracted legal showdowns, we must go further. These oligarchs are concerned with only one thing: retaining their ostentatious wealth of questionable origin. They are litigious and resourceful, many will circumvent any rule to keep what they have and, in many cases, the Government do not have the basics in place to oppose them. Even the former Foreign Secretary—and briefly Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) slammed the Government’s record as a “decade of drift” on Russia.
Labour maintains that, in expanding our regime against Russia, the Government have been taking time that the people of Ukraine simply do not have. We have been sounding the alarm for years and will continue to do so. Today’s Financial Times reports that the Russian economy has contracted by 4%. It is an interesting percentage because I think it is about the same amount as ours has contracted since 2016. It shows that this is a very slow process and we need to get a wriggle on and get a move on. The report clearly states:
“Last-minute changes to last-minute legislation”
are not indicative of an effective or coherent policy, so we need to get moving. Labour will be very happy to hear of further amendments and statutory instruments that will push this further.
On 11 October 2022, the Government were asked in a parliamentary intervention what consideration had been given to sanctioning cryptocurrency mixers Tornado Cash and Blender. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer right now, but perhaps he could write to me with it and put a copy in the Library for members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to look at as well. Mixers such as these obfuscate the origins of transactions, making them virtually untraceable. Indeed, Tornado Cash has been used to launder more than $7 billion-worth of virtual currency since 2019. The US Treasury has sanctioned both; why have we not? Will the Government bring the UK into line with the US Treasury’s approach? Putin and his cronies are more than capable of exploiting such gaps in our regime, so why are we so slow and allowing this to persist?
Finally, I put on the record a question for the Minister. Will he assure us that the funding that has enabled an increase in full-time staffing numbers will not quietly be depleted following today’s announcements of tax increases for working people and a decrease in public spending? We desperately need excellent Treasury officials to keep on at this and must provide long-term funding for the critical units across both the FCDO and the Treasury. Prior to the war, some countries, such as the US, were well prepared to apply sanctions clearly and efficiently, but the UK was not. The Government have lagged behind and we must close the gaps in export bans to Russia regarding materials that have a potential for internal oppression. Some of that has now been dealt with by statutory instruments, but I would like to see a complete approach and not a colander effect that sees things slipping through.
I conclude by thanking the Select Committee for its challenging and crucial work on illicit finance. I look forward to further action in this regard and further statutory instruments, so that we can increase the pressure on the Kremlin to stop its vile activity in Ukraine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to respond to the debate on the Government’s behalf. I thank all Members for a constructive and useful debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for leading the debate. I acknowledge his long-standing interest and expertise in this field. We are grateful to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for producing this extremely useful report. I hope the Government response shows that we regard it as a serious and useful piece of work, and that the overall tone of the response shows that we treat it as a grave matter that requires our urgent attention.
I was grateful for the contributions from the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I should say that this topic lies in the portfolio of my departmental colleague, the noble Lord Ahmad; I am pleased to respond today on his behalf. I will try to cover off as many of the questions raised as possible, while giving some assurance that the Government’s response treats the issue extremely gravely and seriously.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green asked about our approach to tackling the use of cryptocurrencies. We recently introduced legislation to tackle their use when it comes to sanctions. I will write to her, or have the noble Lord Ahmad write to her, with an update on that statutory instrument, which sought to ensure that the application of sanctions keeps pace with the developments in financial markets, especially when it comes to the use of cryptocurrencies and platforms such as Blender.
A number of colleagues asked about the use of offshore shell companies to purchase property in London. We are tackling the use of offshore shell companies. We are reforming the role of Companies House and improving transparency over UK companies and properties in order to strengthen our business environment and support our national security, while delivering a more reliable companies register to underpin what is important business activity.
The reforms will bear down on the use of thousands of UK companies and other corporate structures as vehicles for facilitating international money laundering, corruption, terrorist financing and the illegal arms movement. The reforms will include the identity verification of people who manage or control companies and other UK-registered entities; greater powers for Companies House to query and challenge the information it receives; enhanced protection of personal information provided to Companies House to protect individuals from fraud and other harms; more effective investigation and enforcement powers for Companies House; and better cross-checking of data. Those are some of the reforms; that is not the entire list. We are aware of the issue and we are tightening up the relevant legislation.
A number of colleagues mentioned the use of SLAPPs and eloquently painted a picture of how they are hugely detrimental to the fabric of civil life. We are committed to protecting free speech and the rule of law in this country; they are cornerstones of our democracy. We are clear that SLAPPs are an abuse of the legal system. They involve the use of legal threats and litigation to silence journalists, campaigners and public bodies. That is deeply detrimental to a free and fair media and to the freedom of individuals. Addressing SLAPPs is a key part of the Government’s work to combat corruption and kleptocracy.
Colleagues will know that earlier this year the Government ran a call for evidence on SLAPPs reform. Our response, published on 20 July, outlined plans for a legislative definition of SLAPPs and an early dismissal process, supported by a formal cost-protection scheme to shield defendants and neutralise the chilling effect of high costs. I am sure colleagues will be reassured to hear that, and we will keep colleagues updated as the process develops.
A number of colleagues mentioned tier 1 investor visas, which they will know are now closed to new entrants. The Home Office lead on visas. We are currently finalising the historical review of the tier 1 provision. We expect the response to be published in the near future. We recognise the interest in the issue, and it is a complex piece of work. The Home Office is of course looking at how to operate a safe and sustainable approach while also attracting investment. We have to get the balance right, but we are clear that any future system must make sure that settlement must be earned and not bought, through applicants actively engaging in the UK economy and delivering job creation and other tangible economic benefits. I hope that information is useful.
Catherine West
Is the Minister aware that just two weeks ago the Home Secretary mentioned in the House of Commons that a number of visas had been sold? She was referring to the change in policy, but I note the difference in the language that the Minister has used today. Will he clarify what the Home Secretary meant when she said that certain visas had been sold?
Leo Docherty
Although I am grateful for the invitation to speak for the Home Secretary, I am going to pass on that opportunity. The hon. Member might seek clarification from the Home Secretary herself.
We are proud that we have sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals and 120 entities since the start of Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. That includes sanctioning Russia’s major banks, as well as more than 120 oligarchs with a combined net worth of more than £140 billion. This was made possible due to cross-Government planning months before the Russian invasion. Our planning proved pivotal to the swift designation of individuals and the introduction of new measures within days of the invasion. The legislation enabled the Foreign Secretary to sanction more individuals and entities at a greater pace.
We are taking robust action across Government, and with our international partners, to ensure that sanctions are effectively enforced. That is done through the Russian elites, proxies and oligarchs taskforce, which brings together international partners to ensure the effective enforcement of financial sanctions implemented against Kremlin-linked elites and entities.
Neil Coyle
Ten of the people sanctioned by the Government are Russian nationals who were recipients of tier 1 visas. Does the Minister have any sense of shame at the level of misuse of that system? When will the review of the 6,000 people who took tier 1 visas but were under investigation for being a national security risk conclude? He has not given us any information on that.
Leo Docherty
I repeat that the review will be published in due course. We recognise that there has been a problem, which is why it is under review. It will come forward in good time, I hope.
Let me turn to the resources committed to sanctions. As noted in the Government’s response to the report, we agree that the skillset of staff focused on sanctions has been central to our success in bringing those sanctions to bear. In recognition of the central role that sanctions continue to play as a key part of UK foreign policy, our Department has established a permanent sanctions directorate, in line with one of the report’s recommendations. As part of this new directorate, our Department has established a cadre of sanctions experts to build the enduring expertise that we need in the long term.
Additionally, I can confirm that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation will have more than 100 staff by the end of this financial year, with current staffing having already more than double compared to last year. That will enable the OFSI to continue to lead the implementation of UK sanctions and ensure that assets in the UK are frozen.
On our approach to asset freezes as opposed to seizures, and getting that balance right—many colleagues have mentioned this and it has come up on the Floor of the House—we are exploring further options to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine using Russian-linked assets. That presents complex legal and policy challenges that officials are considering in detail with other Departments. We are looking at it seriously because we recognise that the scale of assets currently frozen is very significant. I am sure we would all be pleased if there was a route through good legal policy to ensure that that money could be used to make a positive difference.
On overall funding, combatting illicit finance requires the necessary resources to enforce our anti-money laundering laws and bring kleptocrats to justice, which is why the Government have developed a sustainable funding model that demonstrates our commitment to tackling economic crime. We are investing in the National Crime Agency and have increased its budget year on year since 2019. Since February, we have also created a new unit in the NCA, the combating kleptocracy cell, which is focused on targeting corrupt elites and their wealth in the UK. The combination of last year’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. That includes £63 million for Companies House to implement its transformation programme, which I already mentioned.
On the speed and scale of our response, we have taken robust action over the past decade. We published a landmark economic crime plan in 2019; we increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites; we established the National Economic Crime Centre; we passed the Criminal Finances Act 2017; and we became the first major economy in the world to implement a public register of beneficial ownership of domestic companies.
Earlier this year, the Government took swift action by passing the expedited Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The Act is already helping us to crack down on dirty Russian money in the UK. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which builds on that Act, is currently in Committee. The Bill will help us to bear down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, thus strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive while driving dirty money out of the UK.
A number of colleagues, particularly the hon. Member for Stirling, mentioned the role of Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Of course, all Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres are committed to meeting international standards on illicit finance, tax transparency and anti-money laundering, including those set by the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force. All Crown dependencies and inhabited overseas territories have committed to introducing publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership. That is a major shift that puts them ahead of most jurisdictions.
I am pleased that significant progress has been made by several of the jurisdictions, including Gibraltar, which I visited recently. Gibraltar’s register is already operational. The Cayman Islands is working at pace and is completing a consultation on the details of its register. The British Virgin Islands also recently passed legislation that will enable the framework for regulations to be made for a register, in preparation for 2023. Smaller overseas territories, such as Montserrat and Anguilla, are working with the FCDO to update their systems to enable public access. We have funded Open Ownership, a specialist NGO, to provide technical assistance to each overseas territory.
I reiterate our gratitude to the Foreign Affairs Committee for its detailed and useful report. We hope that the Government’s response will assure colleagues that we are gripping the issue at the policy and technical levels. We also hope that it sends the message that London and the UK are no place for dirty Russian money and that our legal framework and institutional strength will deter anyone who thinks that is not true. I also hope it will provide reassurance to our friends and allies, especially Ukraine. We are determined to ensure that we are able to help Ukraine to rebuild its country and defend its sovereignty against outrageous Russian aggression, which all too often has been connected to Kremlin-linked international assets. I hope the Government’s response reassures people that we are getting after it.
Bob Seely
I thank everyone for taking part in the debate and I thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, The cost of complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine, HC 168, and the Government response, HC 688.
Persecution of Christians
(1 year, 5 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) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.
I am pleased to make a contribution in Westminster Hall any time, but I am especially pleased to speak on this matter today. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I, with the support of other Members, approached the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate around this time, because we wanted it to tie in with Red Wednesday, which is next Wednesday. We were pleased to get the debate, and I am pleased to see right hon. and hon. Members here to contribute to it.
I start by declaring an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. In that capacity, I regularly voice, as other Members do in and outside the Chamber, the plight of Christians, those of other faiths and those of no faith who suffer on the grounds of their faith or belief. In my work with the APPG, I am regularly edified and encouraged by seeing all faiths and beliefs work together to advance FORB issues. Whether it is Christians advocating for humanists, humanists advocating for Muslims, or Muslims advocating for Sikhs, cross-belief support is a remarkable driver of change and solidarity in the face of persecution. I believe that human rights and religious belief walk hand in hand—they are married.
However, this debate is specifically about persecution of Christians. We should not shy away from the plight of persecuted Christians. I never will, and others in the Chamber never will. Against a backdrop of deteriorating conditions for many faiths and beliefs, we must not and will not dilute the grave challenges Christians face worldwide. In 2015, the largest religious group was those of a Christian faith, who numbered 2.3 billion, or 31% of the global population. In 2022, 360 million Christians experienced high levels of persecution and discrimination, an increase of some 20 million on 2021. In 2019, religious groups—especially Christians—were persecuted in 190 out of 198 countries.
We often look at stats and just take note of them, but the stats prove the issue. That is why this debate is so important. My remarks and those by others today will show that Christians face extreme levels of violent attacks in places such as Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, China, Russia, India and North Korea. I could name another 40; those are just 10 out of the more than 50 countries where Christians suffer for their faith today. The scale of oppression means that it is necessary to focus on one group in particular. That is why I gave the stats that I gave, and that is why the debate is so titled. By advocating freedom of religion for Christians, I can be safe in the knowledge that freedom of religion or belief for all will improve. I am a believer in that, Dame Maria; I believe that expressing myself in this debate on behalf of Christians will ensure that those of other beliefs and faiths have the very same rights.
This debate is especially pertinent because next Wednesday, 23 November, is Red Wednesday. That is a Christian initiative, spearheaded by Aid to the Church in Need, to remember our Christian brothers and sisters around the world who are persecuted for their faith. Buildings will be lit up red—the colour of martyrdom, which illustrates the blood of saints killed across the world. Next Wednesday, I hope that more and more people will be made aware of the persecution of Christians.
Yesterday, Aid to the Church in Need launched its latest report, entitled “Persecuted and Forgotten?” I wish I could have attended that event, but the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) brought me a copy of the report during the Westminster Hall debate on Ethiopia and Tigray. The report highlights cases of Christians persecuted due to their faith over the last three years, and it makes for harrowing reading. Some of the contributions to that debate referred to cases in the report, which are harrowing. I always find it incredibly hard to listen to contributions in the Chamber recounting personal stories of what happens to men, women and children because of their faith.
In 75% of the countries surveyed, oppression or persecution of Christians has increased in recent years. Similarly, the Open Doors “World Watch List” report finds year after year that the persecution of Christians is getting worse, not better—it never seems to get better. Last year, 5,898 Christians were murdered for their faith, and thousands more were maimed or injured, or had their places of worship damaged or destroyed. In the age of technological, social and medical advancements, we should ask ourselves why rights for Christians are not advancing. We are here today to make that point and illustrate it in an evidential way with stories.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has set out the statistics about how many Christians have been persecuted for their faith. Does he agree that, as a Christian country with an established Church, we need to do more to protect Christians in the UK and across the world, and use our global influence, especially in the Commonwealth, to help Christians and people of all faiths so that no one has to die in such horrific ways?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is here to participate in the debate. He and I hold similar Christian views and faith.
My party and I first held a debate on the persecution of Christians back in, I think, 2012. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Member for Congleton were both there, and there was consensus on both sides of the Chamber. That is when debates on Christianity as a persecuted faith started, and we have continued to hold them. I think they have had a key role.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I spoke to him before the debate and I have great expectations of him, because I know he understands the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton and I were both saying yesterday that we have high expectations of him, and I am sure we will not be disappointed.
Complacency about the ever-worsening conditions for Christians around the world must stop now. The “Persecuted and Forgotten?” report found that the situation for Christians has worsened in all the countries in Africa that were reviewed: Mali, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Mozambique. The atrocious conditions are evidenced by a sharp increase in genocidal violence. I use that word on purpose, because it illustrates exactly what is happening: it is genocidal violence from militant non-state actors, including jihadists. It is very clear to me that we need to address this issue.
Over the past two years, I and many other hon. Members have repeatedly highlighted how Christian persecution has only intensified since covid-19. According to the Institute of Development Studies:
“In a significant amount of the nations which have encountered outbreaks of the novel coronavirus, politicians and opinion leaders have openly condemned religious minority populations under the guise of epidemiological containment”.
In other words, it is saying that those of the Christian faith are the subject, in this case, of
“hateful messages on social media, public speeches and official policies.”
One would have hoped that such a diminished standard of treatment of religious minorities during covid-19 would have abated by now, but, disappointingly, that does not seem to have happened. The deteriorating conditions accelerated by the pandemic have not been fleeting or vaccinated away. Instead, the pandemic facilitated the creeping curtailment of Christians’ exercise of their faith. That is now the new normal, with no sign of improvement. That has to be addressed across the world.
There are so many countries I could touch on to exhibit the ever-worsening conditions for Christians around the world, but two in particular stand out to me. I have visited both. I want to speak about Nigeria, which I visited in May 2022, and Pakistan, which I visited in 2018. I hope to go back to Pakistan in February next year, if I am spared until that time. Why do I choose those two countries when so many others are also culprits? It is partly for the sheer scale of their abuses of Christians and other religious groups, but it is also because they are the two largest recipients of UK aid. I want to tie those stories together. I am all for UK aid—I am very supportive of it—but I think there has to be an undertaking from Nigeria and Pakistan to address the issues of Christian persecution, discrimination and abuse.
It is my hope that the UK can make the most difference to those countries, and it has a great responsibility to do so. When this country’s taxpayers are contributing to aid going to countries that allow the perpetrators of persecution to escape with immunity, we must ask ourselves whether we are confident that we are not complicit in any abuses taking place. We need to use the aid that we give to those and other countries as an instrument to change what is happening.
To that end, this Government must continue to seek answers about where their aid is going, who it is reaching, and whether religious groups in need are benefiting from that assistance. I ask the question of others on many occasions. Like others, I hear the stories of religious groups not getting the assistance they should when it comes to humanitarian aid and direct UK aid to those countries. Without significant transparency about the aid that is distributed, we cannot be sure that it is not simply fuelling the oppression of Christians. That is a big statement to make, but it is how we feel. Others will illustrate that clearly.
Gender-specific religious-based persecution is a serious problem in Pakistan, with some reports listing it as one of the worst offenders worldwide. When we were in Pakistan back in 2018, we had discussions with the high commissioner about the blasphemy law, which I will comment on later. We chose to adopt a certain attitude on that visit to Pakistan, because we thought that if we condemned the blasphemy law outright, we probably would not get the opportunity to speak to the judges we needed to speak to. Instead, we illustrated to them evidentially that—and it is true—accusations of blasphemy are often malicious, vindictive and untrue. That is what happened in the case of Asia Bibi. Two of the three judges we met agreed; they were of the opinion that it was malicious, vindictive and dishonest, and they said that Asia Bibi would be released. There was an appeal and she was released; she now lives in Canada with her family. But there are other Asia Bibis in Pakistan, and it is very clear from ongoing cases that blasphemy laws are being used in a vindictive fashion.
Aid to the Church in Need’s “Hear Her Cries” report recorded that in the Sindh province in 2018 there were more than 1,000 cases of Christian or Hindu women suffering forced conversion—almost three a day. More often than not, they are just young girls. Women also suffer so-called forced marriage, which is not marriage at all—not as you, Dame Maria, and I would see marriage. It is the rape of non-Muslim women, who are often under age, too.
One high-profile case is that of Maira Shahbaz. I am pretty sure that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough will speak about this, too. In 2020, aged just 14, she was abducted, raped, and forced to marry her abductor and convert. Her birth certificate showed that she was under age, but Lahore High Court judged her to be legally wed, even though the law of the land said that that was impossible. Since Maira escaped from her captor, she has been forced to stay in hiding. Despite repeated requests that the Home Office in this country grant her asylum, she is still waiting. I know that that is not the responsibility of this Minister, but I make a plea, as others will, for Maira Shahbaz to have her asylum request processed so that she can settle in this country, with the freedom that she deserves to have. Hers is a worthy asylum case and a very clear one, given the violence and the loss of freedom that she has suffered.
Sadly, gender-specific persecution is not unique to Pakistan. According to gender-specific research released last year, there was a 31% increase in violence, be that sexual, physical or psychological, against Christian women and girls compared with the previous year. The latter two forms of violence saw the biggest increase in incidents. According to Open Doors:
“Sexual violence can be overt, such as Christian women being abducted by Boko Haram and used as sex slaves, or it can be covert, under the guise of forced marriage, for example. Given the honour culture of many societies, sexual violence is often used to intentionally shame and stigmatise victims as well as their families and communities.”
The impact on all the families is quite large and quite significant.
Moreover, in honour/shame cultures, such as those found in India, many of the methods used to persecute Christian women and girls result in stigma—indeed, that is often a key reason behind the attacks. For example, rape victims are often viewed by society as sexually impure, making them vulnerable to rejection and limiting their prospects. This only serves to perpetuate a cycle of violence against Christians, making it increasingly taboo to be a follower of Christ in this world, which is something that I and many in this Chamber adhere to.
In Pakistan, gender-specific persecution is not the only challenge that Christians face. The ever present threat of allegations under blasphemy law and subsequent imprisonment or death has been used as a weapon against the Christians in Pakistan. Pakistan’s infamous blasphemy laws continue to be leveraged to accuse Christians and other non-Muslims of insulting the Prophet Mohammed or the Koran. Those false accusations are slurs, but they are also malicious, vindictive and dishonest, and they are often made in order to target Christians after a non-related dispute. Many of the cases that I have been aware of have had something to do with land disputes, property disputes, or fallouts. Even a false accusation can lead to mob violence. Once again, such allegations can lead to Christians living in hiding for years afterwards—as Maira Shahbaz is—with little hope of escape, and closed avenues of asylum in the UK. Those avenues of asylum should be open and available to those who have been persecuted and discriminated against because of their faith.
I visited Nigeria in May, and I am very sad to say that the situation in Nigeria has not changed at all. We had hoped that it would. We had some indications from Government officials that things were advancing. But the reality is very different. In Nigeria, abductions, particularly of women and girls, are rife. Many of us will know—indeed, we will all know—of the kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014. It made headlines when 276 mostly Christian girls were abducted by Boko Haram from their school. What has not made the headlines is the reality of that. Eight years later, more than 100 of those girls are still missing. How hard that must be on their mums, dads, brothers, sisters and all the family members who want to know what has happened to their sisters and daughters.
Regrettably, there are many cases of similar, albeit smaller-scale, abductions, with girls still missing after years. We think of the wee lady Leah Sharibu as well. She has been missing for four years. We had hoped that something might come out of our visit in May in relation to Leah Sharibu, but it has not been forthcoming as of this moment. As long as these girls remain missing, we must ask our Government—my Government—what they are doing to tackle impunity in Nigeria, and how they can be sure that the aid given to Nigeria does not fall into the wrong hands.
I and others have great concerns that Nigeria is the cockpit of Africa and that if it goes wrong in Nigeria, with its massive population, it can go very wrong for the rest of Africa. I know that is something the Minister takes particular interest in, and I am sure that he will give us an update in his response.
In May, earlier this year, I visited Nigeria along with other members of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. A main takeaway was that young people were ripe for radicalisation, facilitated largely by Government corruption and a culture of impunity. If more is not done to stem the spread of jihad, we will, without a doubt, witness genocide in Nigeria.
Earlier, I mentioned that some 5,898 Christians were killed last year, for simply believing that Jesus is their Lord. I find that almost incomprehensible. Of those, 4,650 were in Nigeria. That gives us an idea of the scale of the difficulties in Nigeria; that is why my focus has been on Pakistan and Nigeria. Yet again, that figure means that more Christians were murdered in Nigeria for following Jesus than in the rest of the world combined. That is a big stat to take in.
Yesterday, Bishop Jude, from Ondo State in Nigeria, visited Parliament. He is the bishop in the diocese where earlier this year, on Pentecost Sunday—a mere seven days after we visited the area—Catholics were massacred during a church service at St Francis church. Bishop Jude described how young children were shot through the head by Islamists. The amount of pain and suffering that such attacks inflict upon Nigeria’s population is unimaginable, and yet their faith still remains. It is an incredible test of faith, but it also tells of the faith they have.
What of the international community’s response? In November 2021, the US removed Nigeria from its list of countries of particular concern, and it has still yet to redesignate it as such. I ask that the Minister has discussions with the United States about reinstating Nigeria on that list, where it should be. The US of all countries should be doing that. The reasons for removing the designation remain somewhat unclear, especially in the light of such severe violations of freedom of religion or belief.
Although this Government condemned the attack, they also expressed the view in response to a written question on the matter that:
“The root causes of violence are complex, and in the case of intercommunal violence, frequently relate to competition over resources, historical grievances and criminality.”
I do not deny for a second that this is a complex issue or that there is a backdrop of compounding difficulties to the insecurity in Nigeria, but we must stop kidding ourselves that competition over resources, commonly attributed to climate change, is a greater cause of such violence and killings than pure unabated, violent hatred of Christians. The Islamic extremists in Nigeria could have massacred people in the street or in a Government building, but they did not. Instead, they shot, killed and maimed Christians, who were specifically targeted. The distinctly religious-based nature of the conflict should not be dismissed. Scarce resources do not shoot worshippers through the head; extremists do.
The rise of extremism is not unique to Nigeria. According to the latest report from Aid to the Church in Need, in June 2021, fighters belonging to Islamic State in the Greater Sahara executed five Christian civilians seized at a roadblock between Gao, Mali and Niamey, Niger. In Mozambique, al-Shabaab stepped up its terror campaign, killing Christians, attacking Christian villages and burning down churches. The group is affiliated to Daesh, which claimed responsibility for the March 2021 attack on Palma in north-east Mozambique. All the while, we as the west seem to do very little in response.
I know the Government are committed to freedom of religion and belief, but we need to perhaps take a more focused approach in relation to aid on where the difficulties are and what we can do to help. What can we do to stem the flow of violence, persecution, oppression and even genocide against Christians? I have some suggestions for the Minister, for His Majesty’s Government—for my Government. First, the FCDO must continue to affirm FORB issues as a priority concern within its human rights agenda, maintain its focus on gender and sexual violence in conflict and its interplay with FORB issues. In short, a mainstreaming of FORB in the FCDO’s approach to other nations would be welcome.
In connection with that, asylum seekers who are fleeing due to being persecuted for their religion or belief must be prioritised, and that is critically important. If that is done, the delayed acceptance of religious minorities from Afghanistan into the resettlement scheme would never be repeated. There are some people in a hotel in North Down who have been there since they were repatriated from Afghanistan. I welcome the scheme—I really do—but they are still there. There needs to be a system where people can get out. They want to work, they want to be settled and have things getting back to some normality as much as possible. Similarly, utmost efforts should be made to enable religious minorities to make asylum applications. Often they face more barriers than others in this process.
The work of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, currently the hon. Member for Congleton, must be adequately resourced and fully integrated into the FCDO’s work. That is another ask through this debate. I know that she will not ask for it, but I will ask for it for her, because I think it is the right thing to do. Amplifying the concerns of Christians worldwide is all well and good, but we need to be sure that the FCDO is listening and taking action in response. If that work was incorporated within the FCDO, that would be a massive positive step.
I also suggest, as developed in a debate only a few weeks ago, that His Majesty’s Government do more to encourage the abolishment of the death penalty or life sentences for the charges of blasphemy. That is one small change that could make a tangible difference for so many Christians in multiple countries. Encouraging states to ensure the rule of law and not tyranny by sharia courts is fundamental to that aim. It is wholly unacceptable for a state to constitutionally have no state religion and yet have sharia law prevail among its court system, as it does in Nigeria and in other countries.
Finally, returning to Pakistan and Nigeria, I suggest that foreign and development aid be tied to improving FORB conditions. I have said it before in other debates, but saying that again does not lessen the request. It is a different Minister now, and I am always keen to seek the support and the response of the Minister in post. That proposal would not impact on emergency humanitarian aid. We are not saying that aid should not happen; we are saying it needs to be done to improve FORB conditions across the world. It would not impact on the millions of pounds spent by this Government on general development either. Until our Government can be absolutely certain that the recipients of aid are doing all they can to end the persecution, be it state or non-state actors, we should not be complacent about taxpayers’ money going to these countries.
I want to end on a positive note—this is my last word for the moment. In the Gospel of Matthew, it says:
“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
If we cannot deliver justice for the oppressed in this life, may we be sure in the knowledge that justice will be theirs in the second? I believe we have a duty, as representatives in this House and as Christians ourselves, to speak up for our brothers and sisters across the world. We ask our Government and Minister—my Government and Minister—to respond in a positive fashion.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place, particularly knowing as I do his strong personal commitment to humanitarian aid provision over many years, not least from his time as Secretary of State for International Development, when I was privileged to serve on the International Development Committee, but also from our many summer recesses of volunteering when we both enjoyed the Umubano projects in Rwanda and Burundi. I know his commitment is real, and I look forward to working with him equally constructively in my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It is very much with a constructive approach that I look at today’s debate.
My mandate, as stated on the Foreign Office website, is threefold: to bring together UK efforts to promote freedom of religion or belief; to work with the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to raise awareness of cases of persecuted individuals; and to support the implementation of the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, which support not just Christians persecuted for their faith, but freedom of religion or belief for all.
It is always with mixed sentiments that I speak at the annual Red Wednesday debate on the persecution of Christians. It is a privilege to thank the dedicated non-governmental organisations that support those who are suffering simply on account of what they believe. However, year on year, global persecution is rising across faiths and beliefs, and Christians are no exception, as we have heard. The report published yesterday by Aid to the Church in Need, “Persecuted and Forgotten?”, highlights the increase in persecution and notes that Christians are the most widely persecuted faith group in the world.
It is encouraging, however, that Governments across the world increasingly recognise the importance of engaging with freedom of religion or belief as a means of promoting world stability and security, and that across the world, more and more people and organisations are working together. Newly appointed envoys from different countries, ambassadors for freedom of religion or belief, academics, experts, NGOs, countries, people at the UN and the special rapporteur are working collaboratively together globally.
For example, this month the countries in the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance are campaigning against blasphemy laws—some involve the death penalty—which penalise people simply for practising their faith. We have timed that to reinforce work at the UN General Assembly on a global moratorium on the death penalty. It is also encouraging that the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which I have the privilege of chairing this year, has grown to 42 countries. It started formally only in spring 2020, with a handful of countries, and now countries are joining almost every other month. Our collective voice is far louder than each individual voice alone.
It is increasingly recognised that religious differences are the cause of much violence and terror across the world, and in turn of insecurity and poverty. I hope that the Minister, who is new to his post, will also recognise that fact, not least with regard to what is happening in Nigeria today. We must engage with that, including in decisions on humanitarian aid spend.
This week, Bishop Jude Arogundade is visiting the UK from Owo in Nigeria. It was at the church in his diocese, St Francis Xavier, where 40 were killed on Pentecost Sunday. The youngest was two years old. Yesterday, he described for us the scene of carnage that met him as he entered his church. Tragically, however, that was not an isolated incident. Right across many states in Nigeria today, Fulani jihadists—Islamic extremists —are kidnapping, ransoming and killing clergy, abducting school students, forcibly converting, raping and marrying Christian girls, seizing land and obliterating villages. They are killing whole communities and then renaming their land. They are dispossessing thousands, who flee to live in informal camps for internally displaced people. Those are not camps with UN support; they are often camps supported by NGOs. Hunger, thirst, fear and lack of shelter are rife there. I heard just this week of how two teenage boys who were hungry risked leaving the IDP camp to try to fish for food. Their bodies were returned; their heads had been split open like melons with machetes.
Time precludes me from providing more accounts of the multiple atrocities happening in Nigeria. I will send the Minister documentation that I have received for this debate, including from Dr Richard Ikiebe of the Pan-Atlantic University, ACN, Baroness Cox, Open Doors and the director of advocacy at Open Doors, Dr David Landrum, who visited just two weeks ago. He tells me that atrocities are happening not just daily but hourly. That cannot just be explained by climate change and a fight over grazing land. As Dr Landrum told me, it is happening now in the forests and the jungles. The kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014 had nothing to do with the fight over land, and nor did the abduction, ransoming or disappearance of thousands of school children, such as Leah Sharibu. Bishop Jude told us:
“The massacre at St Francis Catholic Church Owo has nothing to do with climate change.”
We need to recognise—I implore the Minister to do so today—that religious differences have everything to do with this violence and, indeed, are the key root cause of the atrocities occurring in so many states across Nigeria. Aid to the Church in Need states:
“In Africa the state of Christians has worsened in all countries reviewed amid a sharp rise in genocidal violence from militant non-state actors, including Jihadists.”
Will the Minister meet me and others to discuss how we can address that? Addressing religious differences now needs to be a priority in our decision making. The bilateral official development assistance spend in Nigeria in 2021-22 was more than £100 million.
Other Governments are recognising the importance of promoting religious cohesion and putting real funds behind their commitment. That is why I say that I want to be constructive in making some suggestions. The Netherlands, for example, is funding projects in Nigeria’s Kaduna and Plateau states, whereby young Christians and Muslims have worked collaboratively on projects such as one to get more electricity into their communities—and it has worked. Not only has that joint working promoted understanding and cohesion, but the women and young people who use sewing machines to produce clothes for their livelihoods can now work longer hours because of the available electricity. That is just one of many projects where joint working across religious communities can build trust.
How can the UK engage in such a way? That is vital, because Nigeria is a huge country with more than 200 million people. As a result of the violence there, many young people feel increasingly disengaged and futureless. Time and again, I have warned that if the UK—Bishop Jude tells me that our voice still commands huge respect in Nigeria; indeed, more than that of any other country—does not engage, millions of young people who feel they have no future in Nigeria will seek to travel here. The devastating impact of that flood of potentially millions of migrants will overwhelm the countries in between, such as Niger. That point cannot be overstated, and it was mentioned to me strongly by a Member of Parliament from Niger when I met him here last month.
Providing better understanding between faith and belief groups, and between young people in a young country, as Nigeria is, is just as critical as providing education for them. Projects similar to the one I described involving young people and engaging them on FORB have been funded in other countries in many parts of the world. There are FORB-related projects in Somalia, the Philippines, South Sudan, Kenya and Mali. One project I heard of, which I understand is proving successful, is in the Central African Republic, bringing youth and religious leaders together to reduce hate speech in the digital sphere. Will the Minister discuss with me how the UK can play its part in supporting similar projects? Addressing the importance of freedom of religion or belief is vital today if we are to maintain our leadership role in tackling poverty and improving security across the world.
We cannot start too young. The alliance that I chair is taking forward a project from the London ministerial conference to produce materials for primary schools to help teachers to educate the very youngest children that it is just as important not to discriminate against someone on account of their beliefs as it is if they are disabled. I am delighted that one of the schools piloting this project—it was recently welcomed with interest by the Minister with responsibility for schools, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb)—is in my own constituency. Our alliance’s aim is to roll out these teaching materials, once they have been piloted, across the 42 countries in our alliance, an idea initiated by one of vice-chairs of the alliance, ambassador Robert Řehák of the Czech Republic. We cannot start too young to help people across the world to understand how critical it is to live peaceably with others of different beliefs, particularly as there is so much friction leading to violence in the world today.
If the Minister is still unpersuaded by reports from NGOs that the root cause of the current horrendous conflict in Nigeria is not climate change but attacks by religious extremists who are intent on genocidal destruction, would he perhaps support an impartial evaluation of what is currently going on in Nigeria and press for a UN commission of inquiry on Nigeria? Will he consider how addressing such freedom of religion or belief issues can be included more strongly in the wording of the revised integrated review, which was announced by the Chancellor today?
The current integrated review commits as a priority action:
“To promote freedom of religion or belief…overseas, taking forward the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 independent review and raising awareness of cases of particular concern - including through collaboration with the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. In 2022, we will host an international ministerial conference to agree steps to advance FoRB for all.”
The ministerial conference was held in London in July. No fewer than 88 countries sent official delegates, with over 1,000 delegates attending from over 100 countries in total. The Truro review is a manifesto commitment and there are still outstanding elements to be fulfilled. I hope that the Minister will concur with me—indeed, it is in accordance with the Prime Minister’s determination to address outstanding manifesto commitments—that work on the Truro review should be completed. It is about promoting not just freedom of religion for Christians, but freedom of religion or belief for all.
As required under the Truro review, an independent review of progress of the Truro work was carried out this year, commissioned by the FCDO. That independent review was led by three freedom of religion or belief experts, including the UN special rapporteur on FoRB, and it was published in April. Its recommendations were fully accepted by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in a written statement, and it highlighted that there is outstanding Truro work to be done. It included as a key recommendation the production of a comprehensive operational action plan to aid
“a more integrated policy approach to mainstreaming FoRB”
in the FCDO, and
“informing multilateral and bilateral level engagement.”
That is much needed. The experts highlighted that work on FORB in the FCDO would benefit from
“more connectivity amongst those in the FCDO pursuing FoRB activities”.
I agree with that. It is now well over six months since that expert review was completed, and action on the comprehensive operational action plan needs to be taken forward. A lack of joined-up working within the FCDO on FORB means that resources are not being used as efficiently as they could be, and that needs to change.
I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister, but that is not to disparage the strong commitment to FORB of our parliamentary colleague, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. It is about making the best use of FCDO resources in support of our mutual roles, and indeed in support of the Minister who is here today.
You will be pleased to hear, Dame Maria, that I will be concluding shortly. We also need to be bolder and better at raising awareness of specific cases of concern. The whole point of advancing freedom of religion or belief is to make lives better. Where individuals are suffering and there is an opportunity for us to make their lives better, we should, in my view, be braver. Of course, this complies with my own mandate, which I touched on at the start of my speech.
We should be braver in raising particular cases of concern, so I will close by highlighting two. In the debate on this topic two years ago, I highlighted the case of Maira Shahbaz. Will the Minister look at how the UK can give safe haven to that poor girl? Two years on, she remains in hiding and in fear of oppressors, and she is living in one room with a sink. Will the Minister meet me to discuss not only her case, but the case of Sawan Masih, who is also from Pakistan? That case, which the hon. Member for Strangford has mentioned previously, involves a man who lives in hiding with his family because he fears being killed by the mob, having been acquitted by the court after being sentenced to death for blasphemy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I plan to move to the Front-Bench winding-up speeches at 3.58 pm, so if the final two speakers split the remaining time between them, we will get both of you in. You have about five or six minutes each.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
I was trying to do the maths in my head, Dame Maria, so you have helped me out. I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, which is becoming something of an annual tie-in with the Red Wednesday commemorations. That is extremely fitting and a real tribute to their work. It is so important to so many of our constituents that we speak up for people who are being denied their right to freedom of religion or belief all around the world, regardless of whether they are Christian, are practising any other belief, or are of no belief.
As the title of the debate suggests, we are focusing on Christians. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, Christians remain one of the most persecuted—in fact, probably the most persecuted and discriminated against—religious group in the world. Perhaps that is to some extent because Christians remain the largest community group in the world, but the statistics demonstrate the significance of their persecution. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that the vast majority of human beings in the world adhere to some kind of religion and profess a belief in a creator god. The majority of them believe in the God revealed to the patriarch Abraham, and most believe in the same God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. On a global scale, religion is therefore not a minority sport, and neither is Christianity.
I pay tribute to organisations, such as Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Aid to the Church in Need, that do so much work to draw attention to these issues. Red Wednesday is a way for everybody to become more aware of the challenges faced by Christians and others who are persecuted for their religious beliefs.
I will briefly echo some of what has been said about specific countries. Nigeria is seventh on the Open Doors 2022 world watch list of the 50 countries where it is most difficult to live as a Christian, but the statistics show that if it were only measuring violence, Nigeria would be at the top of the list, and we have heard some very powerful and, frankly, horrific testimony from the hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton. The call to bring to justice those responsible for genocidal attacks, such as the Pentecost Sunday 2022 massacre in Nigeria, is the focus of Aid to the Church in Need’s petition this year, and I hope that there are things the Government can do and that they will listen to the calls that have been made—for example, to address the question of designating Nigeria as a country of concern.
The Christian community in Iran is not always spoken of, but it is a very real and persecuted minority. The Open Doors world watch list says:
“It is risky for Christians, especially converts, to express their faith publicly (such as in blogs or on social media) since the internet is monitored and this can be used as evidence prior to an arrest.”
When the Prime Minister gave his statement on the G20 earlier today, I asked him what support the UK, the G20 and the global community more widely are offering to everyone in Iran who is now campaigning for democracy and freedom. Perhaps the Minister can address some of that as well.
Then there is the situation in China, where members of many religious minorities—not least the Uyghur Muslims—face persecution on a daily basis, but I want to draw particular attention to the situation of Cardinal Joseph Zen, who is one of Asia’s highest-ranking Catholic clerics. In May, he and fellow campaigners were arrested in Hong Kong for what the Government said was collusion with foreign forces, because they were trustees of a humanitarian relief fund. Together with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), several of us raised our concerns with the Government in early-day motion 36 on 12 May, in which we agreed with Human Rights Watch’s comments that the arrest of the 90-year-old Cardinal for peaceful activities was a shocking new low for the Hong Kong Administration, and that it illustrates the city’s freefall in human rights over the past couple of years.
The Government must continue to work to tackle those issues in different countries around the world, as they have committed to. They also have to ensure that they are doing what they can on a domestic level to protect freedom of religion and belief and promote tolerance at home. In my part of world, Glasgow and the west of Scotland, we are not immune to religious intolerance. Sectarianism is still a real challenge. The root of it is, ironically, a divide between different Christian denominations; the golden rule of that religion is to “love one another as you love yourself”.
I want to pay tribute to the late Archbishop Mario Conti, the emeritus Archbishop of Glasgow, because among his many achievements was a renewed dedication to ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. Just yesterday, the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland signed the St Margaret declaration, a statement of ecumenical friendship. It was signed by the moderator of the Church of Scotland and the Archbishop of Edinburgh in the presence of the Princess Royal at Dunfermline Abbey. That is a very good example of what is possible from dialogue and the search for common ground. Hopefully it is the kind of thing that elsewhere in the world can learn from.
Many people who come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum do so because of religious persecution, whether they are Christian or otherwise. The language demonising people arriving on these shores in small boats in extremely unhelpful, and not a way to promote tolerance. The Government need to bear that in mind. I am still aware of ongoing challenges for very simple things, such as access to visas for supply ministers and religious leaders when they want to come to the United Kingdom in the summer to supply for Christian parishes or other faith communities. None of that necessarily speaks to a welcoming attitude.
The Government have to take all of that into account, and, if they are going to continue to cut the aid budget, they have to explain how they are going to make that work smarter and harder, so that progress can be continued in those areas, particularly towards the Truro report recommendations, as the hon. Member for Congleton said. She has been the Prime Minister’s envoy under three Prime Ministers, which shows how seriously she takes her role. We all support her in taking that role seriously, and I hope the Government will continue to do so too.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I hope these debates make some difference. I think I have spoken in all of them over the years, and the situation just seems to get worse and worse, but I suppose we cannot keep silent. The situation in Nigeria that we have heard so much about is truly appalling. Within the period we have been talking about, perhaps 7,000 Christians have been murdered. We keep referring to it, and I suppose there is a degree of hopelessness about what we can do, but should we feel hopeless? We have a Minister here who has spent a lifetime committed to helping people in the developing world. We do have influence because of our very large aid budget. I sometimes wonder whether we are using that influence to the greatest effect, particularly with countries such as Nigeria.
There is a suspicion that the Nigerian authorities are not as zealous as they should be in cracking down on this violence, which is little less than genocide. There is very little publicity about the loss of black lives in Africa, but black lives matter everywhere. They do not just matter in the west; as I have said before, they matter equally in Africa. When people are being murdered simply for their faith, we should call that out, and our Government should call it out in their relations with Nigeria. I am sure the Minister will say that we do that, but we must use our influence.
There are a couple of new countries that we have not talked about before where things are getting very difficult. For instance, in Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front is increasingly cracking down on civil society and local churches. Bishop Declan Lang commented:
“Over recent years the people of Nicaragua have endured deepening repression and violations of human dignity. Many have been unjustly imprisoned…or killed for defending their basic rights. Others have been forced to flee… Among them, bishops, priests, seminarians.”
Another country we have not dealt with much in these debates in the past is Myanmar, where civil society is under threat. Cardinal Maung Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon, is pleading for protection from violence by military junta troops. In November 2021, 200 troops invaded the Christ the King Cathedral in Loikaw and evicted health workers. The bishops of Myanmar have appealed for humanitarian corridors and sanctuary for their places of worship.
In these debates I and others have repeated referred to the case of Maira Shahbaz, who was raped and is still virtually under house arrest. We have a Foreign Office Minister here now, and I do not understand why we cannot do more to get this girl out. We have had meetings with the Home Secretary, as have other colleagues. What is the Foreign Office doing about this case? Is there something we are not being told? Many, many migrants are coming to this country, and many of them are not genuine asylum seekers, but Maira Shahbaz is obviously a genuine asylum seeker. We have repeatedly raised her case, but she is still stuck in Pakistan.
The truth is that the position of Christians is very dangerous indeed. What is so sad is the decline of Christianity in the middle east, the home—or first home—of Christianity. It is most marked in Syria where, within a decade, numbers of Christians have plummeted from 1.5 million—10% of the population in 2011 before the war began—to 300,000, which is less than 2% of the population. In the aftermath of the 4 August 2020 Beirut explosions, where the greatest impact was felt in the Christian quarter, Lebanon’s church leaders questioned the community’s long-term survival. In Iraq, the rate of exodus is much slower, with the community down from some 300,000 before the 2014 Daesh invasion to as few as 150,000 today in 2022.
It is so sad that the original home of Christianity is seeing a mass exodus of Christians. The situation is not much better in the west bank of Palestine, Israel. Nearly 75 years on from the creation of the state of Israel, Christians in the west bank have declined from 18% to less than 1% of the population today.
We have heard lots about China and new approaches to China in recent days. I want to comment on the false accusations against Cardinal Zen. Here is a man who is 90 years old, and he has been accused of colluding with foreign forces. It is an absolutely ridiculous allegation. He was associated with the now-defunct 612 humanitarian relief fund, which helped protestors in financial need. This is an old man who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Hong Kong is a place where we have a long history. We made a treaty with China to try to ensure freedom of expression. I raised this matter when we went to Rome with Cardinal Gallagher recently, who is the Foreign Minister of the Holy See. He expressed hope that the Hong Kong authorities would draw back from the most serious charges, which unbelievably carry the possibility of life imprisonment. If we have any influence with the Chinese authorities, can we please raise the case of Cardinal Zen and the totally unjust persecution of this very old, very distinguished and very holy man?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to once again participate in a debate on the freedom of religion or belief, specifically the persecution of Christians and the importance of people being allowed to worship their God, however they perceive Him or Her to be. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I know that he cares very much about this issue and often raises it in the Chamber. As others have said, it is important that this issue continues to be on the radar of not only this House but the international community.
It is a fundamental, basic freedom to worship your God, however you perceive Him or Her to be. The freedom to choose who you worship and how you worship is a fundamental human right. We have to remember that those nations that persecute Christians and anyone else who follows a religion to which their leaders are hostile—nations that turn a blind eye to the persecution of a number of their citizens based on their faith—also tend to impose and sanction other breaches of human rights.
Persecution on the basis of faith does not happen in isolation, but it is insidious, cruel, repressive and unacceptable. It often goes hand in hand with the repression and subjugation of women. Forcing people to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is often little more than a means of control, which is why those who choose to subscribe to a minority religion in repressive states are considered by those leaders to be dangerous and are subject to persecution—if not carried out by the state directly, then sanctioned by the state.
The means of control often include forcing people to subscribe—even if only outwardly—to a particular religion; making it an offence to insult the dominant religion, as we have heard happens in Nigeria; and making blasphemy a crime punishable by death. The days of preaching to convert people the old-fashioned way is clearly not used in such states. As the hon. Member told us, blasphemy laws are too often manipulated to settle petty scores. Alternatively, people are forced to subscribe and defer to a particular religion or die as a result of some perceived act of blasphemy. That seems to be the choice that many face in such regimes.
In this day and age, we can scarcely imagine from the comfort of the west how horrific living in such a place must be if you are a Christian—the most persecuted religion in the world. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom reported 732 blasphemy-related incidents across 41 countries in the short time between 2014 and 2018. Four of the 41 countries accounted for nearly 80% of all reported incidents of mob activity: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt. Any international engagement by the west with such states takes place under the shadow of the violence and oppression that they perpetrate. It is on that basis that free nations must make it clear that they will not tolerate religious oppression of any kind, and they must use every lever at their disposal—diplomatic or otherwise—to challenge and counter persecution wherever it exists.
I note the comments made by others that Nigeria tops the list of countries with the most violent persecution of Christians. All free and democratic members of the international community must have that information in the forefront of their mind in any dealings with Nigeria or any such state. They must take concentrated and concerted action to challenge and tackle this matter, because hand-wringing and finger-wagging is not working. From Myanmar to Nigeria, Kashmir to Ethiopia, Afghanistan to Somalia, India to Pakistan, and from Saudi Arabia to Iran, at least 360 million Christians have experienced high levels of persecution and discrimination this year alone—20 million more than in 2021. Persecution of Christians is growing, not decreasing.
Every day, around 13 Christians are killed because of their faith. Every day, 12 churches or Christian buildings are attacked. Every day, 12 Christians are unjustly arrested or imprisoned, and another five are abducted. The problem is getting worse. I pay particular tribute to the hugely important work of the charity Open Doors, which works tirelessly to support persecuted Christians around the world. It shines a much-needed light on this persecution on the international stage, so that this horror is not forgotten by members of the international community who value freedom. Open Doors reminds us that its world watch list—the annual accounting of countries that are guilty of most persecution of Christians—is not a compilation list of oppression. Perhaps upliftingly, it lists the resilience of those who hold true to their faith in the face of the greatest and gravest of danger.
Freedom of religion or belief is codified in international law: 41 years ago, in 1981, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. Despite that declaration, much more needs to be done by the whole international community—of course, I include the UK Government in that—to support freedom of religion or belief around the world. There must be no more important missed opportunities. Sadly, the 2022 international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, which took place in July in London, has a legacy of diplomatic fall-outs but not much more than that on what we have been pushing for today.
Fiona Bruce
I talked about the project of creating education materials for primary schools, which was one of the issues talked about at the ministerial conference. That is actually one of about seven streams of works that the alliance is taking forward following ministerial conference, after we analysed the ideas and suggestions. Obviously, it will take some time to bring forward the fruit of that work, but I hope that in 2023 it will become apparent.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Lady for pointing that out.
The push for greater recognition of the freedom of religion or belief will never be solved by one conference—we all recognise that the problem is too ingrained and too great—but it could have been a more significant step on that important path. But I take the hon. Lady’s point: small steps are steps, none the less.
To make sustained and meaningful progress on this important issue, we need the international community in the west, where we believe in freedom, to engage in an ongoing and evolving mission. We need to be braver about challenging repressive nations that persecute their own people for worshipping their own God. We need to be willing to confront them on the international stage at every opportunity. It is unacceptable for any state, any Government or any person to attempt to interfere with someone or persecute them on the basis of what God they choose to worship. Every nation that believes in freedom should say so and be unafraid to stand up for those who are oppressed. That is their moral obligation and duty. If we do not stand up for freedom, what will we stand up for?
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. We have had an excellent debate, as always. This very important debate has drawn attention to the persecution of not just Christians but other minorities. Today we are concentrating on the world’s largest faith, the Christian community. The contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was, as always, excellent and very well informed. He is passionate about this subject.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). She and I have worked on many causes relating to international development and freedom of religion or belief over the years, and she is a champion for Christian beliefs and freedom of religion. She does an excellent job. I hope that if there is ever a change of Government, she can serve under the Labour Government, because she is so good at what she does. That is not a job offer, by the way—I do not have the right to do that—but she really is a credit to this institution.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a typically excellent contribution. We also heard from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is a champion for this cause, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for winding up on behalf of the Scottish National party.
As always, it is excellent that the hon. Member for Strangford has secured this timely debate. I also praise his tireless work on the issue. The persecution of Christians contributes a huge amount to the overall religious oppression that we sadly still see across the world today.
Some 360 million Christians—at least, that is the number that I retrieved—face extreme levels of persecution. That is the greatest ever number on record, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out. While that oppression impacts on everyone in Christian communities, it also includes gender-specific religious persecution—as the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Congleton pointed out—because the persecutors often particularly target women from Christian minorities in a bid to destabilise the whole of their community.
As we approach White Ribbon Day, which aims to draw attention to the ongoing violence against women and girls, it is vital that we work within the international community, using our diplomatic influence, to tackle those countries that view Christian women and girls simply as sexual objects and vehicles of shame. It is also deeply disturbing that incidents of sexual violence against Christian women and girls were reported in 90% of countries in the top 50 of the Open Doors world watch list in 2022. Will the Minister tell us what the UK is doing on the international stage to tackle such vile persecution?
Fiona Bruce
London will host a conference of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative on 28 and 29 November, and I hope that it will highlight the double jeopardy for women who are persecuted for their gender as well as their faith or belief. Does the hon. Member agree that that is very important?
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, and I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I absolutely agree, because the two are not separable. It is tragic that that should be the case.
Today, we have heard of many horrific experiences of Christians across the world. However, I would like to turn my attention to another case study of persecution against Christians, which the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned. As my regional brief on Labour’s Front Bench covers Latin America, I am well aware of the issues facing democracy and the freedom of expression in Nicaragua. Sadly, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that has had a huge impact on Christians who do not fully conform to the will of the Ortega regime—or should I say dictatorship?
In August, a Roman Catholic bishop was put under house arrest, and four priests, two seminarians and a cameraman were also imprisoned. In the middle of the night, Nicaraguan security forces stormed the property where Bishop Rolando Álvarez and 11 others had been confined for 15 days. Bishop Álvarez was forcibly taken and placed under house arrest while the other priests, seminarians and the cameraman were held in detention.
In addition to those shocking and unjustified arrests, the Nicaraguan Government shut down all radio stations associated with the bishop that were critical of the Ortega regime. Everyone arrested should be released and the persecution of Roman Catholics’ freedom of expression in Nicaragua must be brought to an end. What are the Government doing to challenge the Nicaraguan Government, and have they considered further sanctions against that country?
On a more positive note, I visited Colombia in May, six months ago, to look at the election situation and to consider the attacks on trade unionists and religious and indigenous people in that country. I saw the brilliant work of the Roman Catholic Church’s Justice and Peace Commission, which took me to the suburb of Usme to meet the youth collective there. The commission sponsored and supported them, helped to build the community centre, and underpinned the security of that organisation, which was, at the time, under attack from the police.
Red Wednesday, on 23 November, is an opportunity for all of us across this House to reaffirm our support for Christians as well as freedom of religious belief across the world, just as we have done during this debate. Christians contribute so much to our society, but they must be allowed to contribute as much in the many other countries where they are still being targeted solely for their faith and their belief.
I am proud to represent Leeds North East, where we have an extremely diverse community, made up of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists, as well as other minority religions. We are culturally, morally and spiritually richer for this mix, so it is only right that we play our part in trying to ensure that communities in other countries across the world can exist in such great harmony.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I should tell you that in the 35 years I have been in this House and in my three stints in Government, this is only the second time I have responded to a debate in this Chamber—but it is the second time in two days. It is a bit like buses: I wait for 35 years and then two come along almost immediately.
I am in effect standing in for Lord Ahmad—it is obvious why—who, as a number of people said, is the Minister who has considerable knowledge of this issue and worked extremely hard on it. He will read our debate with the greatest possible interest.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and I commend him for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief for all. His speech today was littered with the wisdom and authority that he commands in the House. He is much respected across the House for what he has to say. He ended his remarks by looking at the Gospel according to St Matthew, and our debate was enriched by that contribution.
I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which continues to raise awareness of this human right among parliamentarians and the public alike. The shared passion across the House to protect freedom of religion or belief is clear, warranted and to be warmly welcomed. I will try to respond to the various points that have been made during the debate and to highlight the UK action in respect of that.
I will come to the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) later in my remarks, but I thought he spoke for the entire House today. He praised my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—he did not quite offer her a job, but he nearly did—and saluted her ecumenical approach politically. The whole House will agree with that. He urged us to use our diplomatic influence to stop persecution—we most certainly are, and will—and on his point about Colombia, one of the other Foreign Office Ministers will shortly be there to amplify and emphasise the cross-party approach that we are taking.
It is fitting that this debate falls just ahead of Red Wednesday, a day to stand in solidarity with persecuted Christians. The Foreign Office will demonstrate our support by lighting our building in red. We have noted the report from Aid to the Church in Need, released yesterday, and we will study its findings closely.
I pay particular tribute to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for his work standing up for persecuted minorities and on development. He speaks with unique authority about our moral duty to the poorest and least well-off. In the same spirit as the hon. Member for Leeds North East, I express my admiration and praise for the faith communities across Birmingham who work so impressively together and to great effect and success. The royal town of Sutton Coldfield makes an enormously constructive contribution to such important issues. In the royal town, we have the Bishop of Aston, who makes a great contribution and resides in my constituency.
Like this House, the Government believe that violence against any person because of their religion or belief is wholly unacceptable. Although this debate particularly highlights the plight of persecuted Christians, we do not forget or in any way diminish the experience of those persecuted for holding other religions, beliefs or no religious beliefs at all. The Government are committed to championing freedom of religion or belief for everyone—something enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and in our own organisational values. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for human rights, continues to work closely with the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, to deliver precisely on that commitment.
We demonstrated the depth of our commitment this summer by hosting an international ministerial conference that brought together more than 800 faith and belief leaders and human rights actors and 100 Government delegations to agree action to promote and protect these fundamental rights. As a result of the conference, 47 Governments, international organisations and other entities made pledges to take action in support of freedom of religion or belief.
In addition, we are pursuing three broad strands to advance freedom of religion or belief and tackle the associated human rights concerns: first, working through multilateral bodies; secondly, working with states directly to encourage and support them to uphold their human rights obligations; and thirdly, through our continuing work to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 review.
On multilateral action—the first strand—we work with organisations such as the United Nations, Council of Europe, G7 and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for her dedicated work as the UK representative and chair of the alliance. Under her leadership, participation has grown to 42 countries. I welcome the joint statements recently issued by the alliance on concerns related to Ahmadi Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baha’is, Ukraine, Nicaragua and Nigeria—on which I will say more in a minute, if time permits.
In September, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke at the United Nations and urged the international community to call out Iran for systematically targeting members of minority communities, to press Afghanistan to protect minorities targeted for their beliefs, to challenge the discriminatory provisions in Myanmar’s citizenship laws and to hold China to account for its egregious human rights violations in Xinjiang.
In our bilateral work, we regularly raise specific issues with other Governments, both in public and in private, where that may result in better outcomes. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad met Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights in October to raise the persecution of minorities, including the forced conversion of young Christian and Hindu girls. In Iraq, religious and ethnic minority populations have significantly declined since 2003 due to exclusion, sectarianism and conflict. Many of these minority communities continue to face extreme challenges in 2022. We regularly raise the need to protect ethnic and religious minorities with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government—most recently in July 2022, again, by my noble Friend Lord Ahmad with the Kurdistan Regional Government Minister for Religious Affairs.
I am also grateful to those who have raised the issue of Nigeria, where both Christians and Muslims have suffered devastating harm at the hands of violent extremist groups, and separately as a result of intercommunal violence and criminality. We remain committed to supporting peacebuilding initiatives across Nigeria to address the root causes of violence, protect human rights and promote dialogue and respect between different ethnic and religious communities.
Finally, the Bishop of Truro’s review set out the gravity of the issue of Christian persecution, along with practical recommendations for an enhanced Government response to the plight of persecuted Christians and people persecuted for holding other religions, beliefs or no religious belief at all. We welcome the findings of the independent review of our work to take forward the recommendations. That assessment earlier this year concluded that the majority of the recommendations are either at an advanced stage of delivery or in the process of being delivered, while noting that more can always be done.
We will continue to ensure that the changes we have made are embedded, and we will look for opportunities to ensure that freedom of religion or belief is central to wider human rights work. To provide a few examples, we have sent a clear message through our global human rights sanctions regime that the international community will not turn a blind eye to serious and systematic violations of human rights. In December 2021, we sanctioned Furqan Bangalzai for his role in orchestrating the 2017 bombing of a Sufi shrine in Pakistan, which killed over 70 people. In March 2021, Lord Ahmad hosted a meeting at the UN Security Council to raise awareness of persecution of religious minorities in conflict zones. Religion for international engagement training is now available to all civil servants to enhance their understanding of the role of religion and belief in a wide variety of contexts, in order to deliver the UK’s international objectives more effectively.
I now turn to some of the specific contributions, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. She does so much good work and speaks so eloquently, as she demonstrated so well today. Across our country, many people in the faith communities will be grateful to her for her leadership. She is going to send information on Nigeria and share it with Lord Ahmad. Of course, it will be a pleasure to have the meeting that she requested. I will look carefully and write if I miss any of her other points. In particular, she raised the issue of the attack on St Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Owo, Ondo state. I want her to know that we condemn that horrific attack and we extend our sympathies to all those affected. We condemn attacks on places of worship. Everybody should be free to practise their religion or belief without fear.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) spoke about a number of organisations that do so much to help. I want to echo his thanks to them. He also raised Iran, whose human rights record continues to be of serious concern to the UK; the Foreign Office has designated it as one of its human rights priority countries. The continued use of the death penalty, weak rule of law and restrictions on freedom of expression and religion or belief are deeply worrying.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) spoke with his great experience, but lugubriously. He asked us to use our influence to greater effect in Nigeria. I will be going there before long, and I will raise directly the points that he made. He also raised the issue of Nicaragua, as did the hon. Member for Leeds North East. Reports of harassment and detention of members of the Catholic Church in Nicaragua are of enormous concern. Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right, and we have made it clear there that they must be protected.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough also raised the Aid to the Church in Need petition to grant Maira Shahbaz asylum. I am very conscious of that case. I know my right hon. Friend will accept that I must be careful when commenting in public on individual cases where individuals’ or their families’ lives could be put at risk, but I want him to know that I am deeply conscious of his point.
My right hon. Friend also raised a point about Cardinal Zen. We will certainly continue to make representations. We are closely following the cases of pro-democracy figures who face charges in Hong Kong, including Cardinal Zen. Officials from the British consulate general in Hong Kong attend local court hearings related to a number of rights and freedoms issues and will continue to do so. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) addressed in forthright terms the evil of persecution and the various ways in which that evil is pursued and delivered. She spoke about Open Doors, for which we are extremely grateful.
To conclude, as a long-standing champion of human rights and freedoms, the United Kingdom has not only a duty but a deep desire to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect at home and abroad. I assure Members here today that the Government will do just that. We will continue to raise awareness of all persecution and we will defend the right to freedom of religion or belief for everyone, everywhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.
Written Statements
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Autumn Statement: Charter for Budget Responsibility
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Today I have published a draft updated charter for budget responsibility, a copy of which has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The draft sets out the new fiscal framework announced at autumn statement 2022.
The updated charter will be laid before Parliament, and a debate and vote scheduled, in due course.
[HCWS371]
Tax Credits and Child Benefit: Review of Rates
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Tax Credits Act 2002 and the Social Security Administration Act 1992 place a statutory duty on His Majesty’s Treasury to review the rates of tax credits and child benefit each year in line with the general level of prices. There is a further statutory duty on the Treasury to increase guardian’s allowance in line with price growth. I have now concluded the review for the tax year 2023-24.
I have decided to increase tax credits and child benefit rates in line with the consumer price index (CPI) for the year to September 2022. Guardian’s allowance will also increase by the same rate. This means that:
The majority of elements and thresholds in working tax credit and child tax credit, including all disability elements, will increase by 10.1% from 6 April 2023. This means, for example, that the basic element of working tax credit will increase from £2,070 to £2,280 per year. In line with established practice and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s expectations in their welfare forecast, the maximum rate of the childcare element, the family element, the withdrawal rate and disregards in tax credits will remain unchanged.
All rates of child benefit, plus guardian’s allowance, will increase by 10.1 % from 10 April 2023. This means, for example, that the child benefit rate for the eldest child will increase from £21.80 to £24 per week.
The new rates will apply across the United Kingdom. I will deposit the full list of these rates in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.
[HCWS372]
Higher Education Investigations
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
Today I am laying regulations under section 71 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. These regulations will enable the Office for Students (OfS) to charge a fee for the investigation of providers’ compliance with quality and other requirements, where the investigation results in certain regulatory action or specified outcomes. These regulations will come into effect on 8 December 2022.
Improving the quality of higher education is a manifesto commitment, and one of my highest priorities. This Government are committed to ensuring that students and the taxpayer see returns on their investment and receive value for money. Accordingly, my Department is working with the OfS to implement a rigorous regime of investigations and in-person inspections that ensures robust action is taken where quality conditions of registration have been breached, or are at risk of being breached. I am also committed to ensuring the majority of providers, which are not in breach of the regulatory conditions, experience minimal regulatory burden.
The OfS will identify providers for investigation using a range of information sources, including outcomes data, student notifications, and other monitoring. My predecessor asked the OfS to put “boots on the ground” where necessary, and investigate universities where there are concerns about the quality of provision. These investigations will examine a range of quality matters, including whether courses are sufficiently up to date and academically challenging; whether students receive enough face-to-face engagement; and the extent to which providers secure positive outcomes for students.
Where the OfS finds that a provider’s performance just is not good enough, it may choose to take enforcement action. This could involve a sanction such as a monetary penalty or, if necessary, even go as far as the removal of a provider from the register. This work will effectively tackle pockets of poor-quality provision, and ensure all students, regardless of their background, can benefit from high-quality, world-leading higher education.
In order to fund this regime sustainably, as well as deter against the growth of poor-quality provision, these regulations will allow the OfS to charge a fee for the investigation of providers’ compliance with quality and other requirements, where the investigation results in certain regulatory action or specified outcomes, such as the imposition of a specific ongoing condition of registration. Doing so will help to ensure that the costs of investigations will fall on those responsible for their necessity, and that those in good standing face a more proportionate regulatory burden than would be the case if we did not lay these regulations.
[HCWS373]
Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill contains important powers to drive local growth, empower local leaders to regenerate their areas and ensure that everyone can share in the United Kingdom’s success. It underscores this Government’s continuing commitment to levelling up and securing better outcomes for communities. Yesterday I tabled a number of Government amendments which strengthen the Bill and deliver on our manifesto commitments.
Strengthening devolution within England is a key component of levelling up. The amendments make it clear that there is no possibility of district councils in two-tier authorities having their functions taken away from them and given to combined county authorities. The amendments also enhance powers for mayors to manage their key routes networks to increase transport connectivity, and will enable stronger partnership working between police and crime commissioners and local government by removing a perceived barrier to commissioners participating in local government committee meetings.
Levelling up also means improving access to high-quality and affordable homes across the country, and doing so in ways which meet the needs and expectations of local people. The planning reforms in the Bill will give communities more control over what is built, where it is built, and what new buildings look like, as well as greater assurance that the infrastructure needed will be provided. These reforms create stronger incentives to support development where it is needed.
The reforms are based on five key principles. First, delivering high-quality and beautiful buildings, restoring a sense of community and pride in place. Secondly, enabling the right infrastructure to come forward, boosting productivity and spreading opportunities. Thirdly, enhancing local democracy and engagement by empowering local leaders, increasing accountability and giving communities a stronger say over development. Fourthly, fostering better environmental outcomes. And fifthly, allowing neighbourhoods to shape their surroundings, empowering communities to restore local pride in place.
It is vital that the places we build are beautiful, durable and sustainable. I am already taking steps through the Bill to ensure that every local authority has a design code which can set high standards that reflect local views. National policy has also been strengthened to make it clear that development which is not well designed should be refused. I will announce more details shortly about how the Office for Place—our new body which will uphold high aesthetic standards in architecture—will support authorities in this important work.
Development must also be accompanied by the infrastructure needed to support it. Alongside the proposals for a more streamlined and non-negotiable infrastructure levy which are already contained in the Bill, our amendments will introduce powers to allow piloting of community land auctions. These would give local planning authorities new powers to capture value from land when it is allocated for development, which can then be used to enhance local infrastructure and services.
Strengthening local democracy is central to levelling up, and local communities rightly expect that permissions which they have democratically approved should be delivered. The amendments that I have laid add to the tools that local planning authorities can use to monitor and challenge slow delivery: by requiring developers to report annually on build-out of housing permissions, and giving them the power to decide whether to entertain future applications made by developers who have previously failed to build out existing planning permissions.
I am also firmly committed to enhancing our natural environment while enabling sustainable growth—and will further update the House on my plans to do so in due course. We are also creating a power for the Secretary of State to give new charging powers to certain statutory consultees so that they have greater resources to engage more quickly with nationally significant infrastructure projects.
We are giving local people more opportunity to shape their neighbourhoods by introducing an amendment setting out the full range of powers needed for street votes, giving residents the ability to vote for additional housing where they feel it is appropriate on their street. I have also tabled an amendment implementing a recommendation from Richard Bacon’s review into the self and custom-build sector, removing an ambiguity around the statutory duty to permission land for self and custom-built housing; providing further opportunities for those who wish to build or commission their own home, and for the small and medium-sized builders who are often part of this process, enabling communities to deliver the homes they want.
Levelling up and restoring pride in place means we want to make communities feel safe where they live. That is why our commitment to repeal the Vagrancy Act has always been dependent on the simultaneous introduction of modern replacement legislation to ensure police and other agencies continue to have the powers they need to keep communities safe and protect vulnerable individuals. The responses to the consultation provide a useful basis to inform the shape of future replacement legislation, and we will publish the Government response to the consultation in due course. For now, we will remove the placeholder clause from the Bill and we will not be bringing forward replacement legislation in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. In the meantime, this Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament. We remain steadfastly committed to that goal.
Other amendments which have been laid make a number of technical improvements to the Bill. This includes making sure that development corporations can, where they are designated, take on certain supplementary planning functions where appropriate, so that their powers to drive regeneration and development are effective and up to date. The amendments also clarify the powers introducing high-street rental auctions, to make it harder for those landlords who are sitting on empty premises to avoid their property being subject to an auction, and make sure these powers can address the blight of empty high street shops. We will also make sure that regulations for the compulsory purchase regime in clause 150, which require authorities to comply with data standards, will be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. The amendments also add a “pre-consolidation” clause to the Bill. This technical measure will enable the future consolidation of over 40 different Acts relating to planning and compulsory purchase law, making it much easier to access and understand for all users of the system.
This Bill represents a significant opportunity to give local leaders new powers to reinvigorate their communities and spread opportunity across our country. I look forward to the further discussions that will take place as we take it forward.
[HCWS375]
State Pensions and Benefits: Review of Rates
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 places an annual statutory duty on the Secretary of State to review the rates of state pensions and benefits after consideration of trends in price and earnings growth in the preceding year. I have now concluded this review for the tax year 2023-24.
I have decided that state pension and benefit rates should increase in line with the consumer prices index (CPI) for the year to September 2022. This means that they will increase by 10.1% from 10 April 2023.
I will deposit the full list of the new rates in the Libraries of both Houses in due course, but I am pleased to announce here the increases to some of the largest benefits. The full rate of the new state pension will increase from £185.15 to £203.85 a week. The basic state pension will increase from £141.85 to £156.20 a week. The standard minimum guarantee for a couple in pension credit will increase from £278.70 to £306.85 a week. The enhanced rate of the daily living component of personal independence payment will increase from £92.40 to £101.75 a week. The universal credit standard allowance for a couple where one or both are over 25 will increase from £525.72 to £578.82 a month; the limited capability for work and work-related activity amount will increase from £354.28 to £390.06 a month; and the child element for those born on or after 6 April 2017 will increase from £244.58 to £269.58 a month.
This decision will increase expenditure on state pensions and pensioner benefits by £13 billion in 2023-24 compared to no change in these rates for the same period. It will meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to apply the triple lock to the new and basic state pensions. It will also extend CPI protection to those who rely on the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit at a cost of £700 million above the statutory minimum requirement.
The decision will also increase expenditure on reserved non-pensioner benefits by £9 billion in 2023-24 compared to no change in these rates for the same period. This includes benefits for those with additional disability or care needs and increases to universal credit which provides essential support to people on the lowest incomes while they seek work, seek progression in work, or are unable to work.
In view of the exceptional situation that currently pertains with respect to fuel costs, I have also decided to freeze the standard fuel cost deductions in housing benefit, rather than increase them in line with the normal convention of the fuel element of CPI.
I can also confirm that the local housing allowance rates for 2023-24 will be maintained in cash terms at the elevated rates agreed for 2020-21.
I have also completed my periodic statutory review of the levels of the benefit cap which, since 24 March 2022 and under Section 96A of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, I am obliged to undertake at least once every five years. I have concluded that each of the four benefit cap levels should be increased in line with CPI for the year to September 2022. This means that they will increase by 10.1% from April 2023. The annual benefit cap levels will therefore increase as follows:
to £25,323 for couples and lone parents in London and £22,020 for the rest of Great Britain
to £16,967 for single people without children in London and £14,753 for the rest of Great Britain.
Social security is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland.
[HCWS374]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bank of England: Libor System
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord James of Blackheath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that the Libor system remains available to be exercised by the Bank of England in the event that inter-bank lending is at risk of collapse.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, during the three weeks or so since I entered the ballot for this slot, I have continued to maintain close contact with practitioners in the Libor market, as I support the case for a final resolution of the Tom Hayes case and press the argument to confirm the cancellation of his conviction. At present, he appears to be the only person alive in the world who has ever been convicted of a Libor offence. Everybody else has been acquitted and had their convictions cancelled. Indeed, in the USA, Libor manipulation is no longer regarded as a convictable offence.
Having continuous access to current opinions within the Libor community, I am beginning to consider that I am perhaps wrong in submitting my Question at present. There are too many uncertain factors surrounding this whole issue. First, there is no available market indicator as to the extent to which new Libor initiatives may have to be undertaken in the near future. It is too soon to ascertain whether any new initiatives will be required, arising from the present troubles in the world.
Yet these queries, however speculative and counteractive they may be to undertake, confuse the whole current Libor market. It is massively overstaffed at every level, and nobody knows who is supposed to be in charge on any initiatives. The market needs to be undone, taken apart and restored again, but not as a continuity of what we have. My principle, in seeking to wipe out what we have and start again, is a sensible proposal to run with, but we need to go back to basics.
For example, consider how very little we know of the actual incidence and effect of Libor for all or any portion of the near-80 years since its inception. Consider that we do not know how many Libor initiatives have been authorised or undertaken with official sanction, presumably, but not certainly, from the Bank of England. How many of these remain current, have been resolved or remain unresolved—that is, short-term funding not yet fully repaid? How many failed, and for how many were the rescue attempts successful? If we are to carry on in any form, we need a full and definitive report on what has happened in those 80 years and what we are left with.
I suspect that a good many did not work, and we have never been told their story. What indemnity arrangements remain in place to be utilised, not least to help those who allowed their funds to be used in a rescue and, presumably, have lost them? That is a great question to which we have never heard the answer.
If, at some point, an attempt is launched to terminate Libor, what effect would that have on existing unresolved cases? I am particularly concerned that we need to have an answer about what we will do for the future. A strange organisation called the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is not federal, not reserve, not New York and is not a bank—otherwise there is nothing wrong with it—is making a plea to the Federal Reserve, seeking the backing of the American Government to take over the entire Libor operation worldwide. We do not want anything to do with it. That is one reason why we might want to think of winding up now, so that we can take our own initiative, new and fully minted, with the Bank of England onside.
All these matters require close debate with the official bodies concerned, such as the Bank of England and the CSA. I now believe that my initiative in tabling this Question was premature for the reasons I have given. I request permission to withdraw it, but with the very strong recommendation that we now make separate approaches to the Bank of England and the CSA, and ask them to do their own assessment of the current status of the Libor market—its effectiveness and the extent to which there are unresolved issues out there in Libor initiatives which have been taken but are not yet resolved, of which I suspect there a good many, where funds are irrecoverable or have been misplaced. We need a definitive picture of what the Libor market looks like at this time. Let us not proceed to start the wind-up now, but let us get a definitive position on what the market shape and state is. I suspect it is in an awful mess.
I urge that exploratory initiatives are launched with the key bodies. We need an inside track on these matters so that we can redesign a Libor market which works for us. We also need to be sure if we do this that we are not cutting across unresolved issues, such as winding-up arrangements for banks which fail to survive the initiative, of which I suspect there are quite a few; that any mergers which were created as a wider solution are not interfered with; and that any banks that have been repaired can continue in good order without any interference. This is a very complicated situation, and we need a proper fix on what we have to deal with.
I thank noble Lords for allowing me to share my interest in these matters with them. I am very concerned by what I have seen in the five years of close association I have had in pursuing the Tom Hayes case—the only person to have been convicted in this country. He got 12 years; he served five and a half years. He now has multiple sclerosis and is in a very poor way indeed. We need a final resolution of his case, and I am sure we will. We have a date for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review it in November and that will be very welcome.
I thank noble Lords for letting me speak to them today. This is the first time I have spoken on any subject since my brain haemorrhage in August. I know that anxieties were expressed as to whether the stress of talking to noble Lords might have any further implications, but I am feeling fine. There is an issue here. It must not be dropped. It is urgent. We need to attend to it. Please let us proceed and I will give any help to anybody who asks for it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord’s health is supporting him through this debate. He is absolutely right to draw our attention to the importance of a liquid and well-functioning interbank lending market.
My understanding—and I will leave it to the Minister to make sure that we are properly informed and updated—is that Libor is no longer a valid benchmark, not only in the UK but now in the United States; that even the period in which synthetic Libor existed has now come to a close; and that the translation of outstanding contracts which had embedded in them the Libor benchmark to the new benchmarks has been overwhelmingly successful. I think we were all afraid that there might be some orphans left out there, where you could not contact one party or the other and therefore it was very difficult to make the legal changes necessary for the contracts to remain in place but attached to new benchmarks. My understanding is that that process has gone very well; I am sure the Minister will update us. Of course, in the UK now we have all migrated to the sterling overnight index average, known as SONIA.
That has been a successful process, but I want to pick up another point to which the noble Lord, Lord James, was directing us. I am not going to describe the mechanisms for Libor because everybody in this Room understands how that process worked. There was a panel of banks which submitted every day to the British Bankers’ Association their assessment of what it would cost them to borrow from other banks, in five major currencies and over lending periods of different durations. What concerned me, and I think many of us, was that that system, which relied on trust and was not transparent, was corrupted. For at least 10 years, the major players on those panels adapted their submissions to the British Bankers’ Association to suit their own target profitability, the bonuses of the traders who were informing the submissions to the benchmark and, frankly, the bonuses of senior management.
Not only was this extensive practice but it was completely open. When I was on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, we heard from quite a number of people about how, on the trading floors, a trader would shout quite openly, “I need a Libor submission set at this level because it will let me close this deal” or “so I get across my bonus benchmark”, or, “We need to do it as a favour to so-and-so at bank X”, or whatever else.
It was standard that Libor was a manipulated number and not a genuine estimate of what it would cost one bank to borrow from another, to the extent that in 2007 and 2008, when we had the financial crisis, the Bank of England, not for any purposes of self-reward but to try to stabilise the economy, contacted the chief executives of the major panel players as they made their Libor submissions and asked them to lowball the number to try to minimise panic in the market. This corruption and manipulation of the process was exposed by American journalists, who passed information to the US supervisors, who turned around and put pressure on the regulators in the UK, which led finally to an FCA report and essentially to the public acknowledgement that this system had completely failed to operate with integrity, probably for a period of at least 10 years.
I have a question for the Minister. We never bottomed out how great the impact of that manipulation was. To give noble Lords an idea of why I am concerned about that number, I have done a back-of-an-envelope calculation. According to figures provided to us by the Library, outstanding loans where the interest rate was based on Libor on any one day approximated $400 trillion. That is the daily outstanding block of loans for which Libor established the interest rate. That would have been a combination of variable-rate loans, which would have been Libor plus a spread, depending on the risk of the borrower—Libor plus 10 basis points, or perhaps 125 basis points for a riskier company—but also fixed-rate loans, because they were a Libor loan with a derivative with an interest rate swap sitting on top. Even fixed-rate loans attached themselves to the number established as the Libor benchmark.
If every day for a year—banks work in 360-day years—Libor manipulation increased the cost of borrowing by one basis point, the collective cost to borrowers would have been an overpricing of $40 billion on any one day. If that is extrapolated to every day for 10 years, we are talking about $144 trillion. This is without question the largest financial scandal ever. If one looks at those funds as being stolen, because the loans were deliberately improperly priced, we are talking about a scandal well in excess of all financial corruption of all kinds over the same period. We have never bottomed out that number. I wonder whether the Minister has a number that would give us an idea of what the theft from borrowers, which is what it was, amounted to.
The noble Lord, Lord James, is right that when the various regulators and enforcement authorities looked to hold someone accountable, they decided that our laws on fraud did not encompass misinforming or deliberately manipulating a benchmark. Therefore, almost nobody ended up paying any price for having participated in these schemes, nor did they lose the bonuses they had gained on the basis of the artificial profits that resulted from using them. As the noble Lord said, just one or two people ended up as scapegoats, usually for a fairly narrowly based conviction.
The damage done to London was extraordinary. London always relied on its reputation for integrity; “My word is my bond” was meant to be an underlying principle. It underpinned the whole notion of light-touch regulation and the beginning, in a sense, of the loss of our standing in financial services is very much linked to the whole Libor-era scandal. I am glad that Libor is behind us but incredibly sad that it happened this way. I understand that there have also been market changes that make things such as Libor less relevant, because there really was not enough depth in the interbank market to make the system—even if you operated it fairly and truthfully—particularly efficient. The move in our case to SONIA makes a great sense, for example, so I am glad that period is behind us.
However, as we look at legislation coming through Parliament that moves to much greater financial regulation, it is now important that we understand why Libor went so wrong, why regulators did not act and how weakened regulation could encourage a repeat of similar behaviour. When we get to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, I will particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the changes in the rules that are being introduced for black pools, which are basically exactly like the Libor panel clubs and in which people exchange information and carry out transactions. At present, those black pools are transparent because pre-trade transparency is a requirement under the European directives. That is about to be removed in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which returns us to a construct like a Libor panel—one to be manipulated by major institutions.
I am extremely concerned that the lesson of transparency which the whole Libor scandal underpinned is now, in effect, being discarded as we move towards deregulation. Part of that is because we have never bottomed out the size of the damage done to borrowers, and it is about time that we had that number.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, on securing this short debate and hope that he has not taken the shortness of today’s speakers’ list to heart.
As I understand it, the sterling Libor benchmark was wound up at the end of 2021. The Financial Conduct Authority continues to require the ICE Benchmark Administration to publish synthetic one-month, three-month and six-month sterling and yen rates. The yen rates will end this year, while the one-month and six-month sterling rates will likely cease at the end of March 2023. In its announcement of those dates, the FCA said it considered exposure to those sterling settings to be low. A limited number of US dollar rates will also be available until mid-2023, with those figures calculated using panel bank submissions rather than involving the IBA.
While the transition away from Libor affected a significant number of businesses, and continues to affect some, its phasing out was well trailed. Guidance was available from organisations including the Association of Corporate Treasurers, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and UK Finance. This helped many to prepare for the switching-off of the formal Libor rates last year. Various alternatives to Libor are now widely used, including the sterling overnight index average, SONIA, maintained by the Bank of England. SONIA is by no means a new measure, having been introduced back in 1997, but it has been subject to reform in recent years. The New York Federal Reserve maintains its own measure, the secured overnight financing rate, while several other rates are available to financial institutions and businesses. These alternatives are collectively known as risk-free rates and have been described by the Bank as “robust”.
Of course, not everyone has successfully transitioned away from Libor and some entities with so-called tough legacy contracts have found the process especially difficult. We had several debates on the Government’s approach to these contracts during the passage of the last financial services Bill. The subject was also covered by the critical benchmarks Bill, which sought to provide greater certainty around legacy contracts. However, with so much having happened in domestic and global economic terms since those Bills made it on to the statute book, can the Minister update us on any additional steps taken by the Treasury and regulators to assist those who were unable to transition on time? I am not sure how easy it is to pull all this data together, but I presume somebody has responsibility for it.
At present, unless I have missed a subsequent update from the FCA, no determination has been made on the winding-up of the three-month synthetic sterling rate. Firms’ exposure to that rate is felt to be higher than the one-month and six-month equivalents, raising the prospect that the synthetic rate may be provided beyond March 2023. This is, of course, a decision for the regulator and it will be for the IBA to follow any directions given to it. However, is the Minister able to provide any updates on the FCA’s deliberations? When is a final decision likely and how much notice will be provided? The FCA’s current advice for firms with contracts referencing the three-month measure is merely to prepare for its cessation “in due course”. Given the complexity of the challenges faced with these legacy contracts, I am not sure that is particularly useful.
The transition away from Libor appears to have been largely successful. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; we were both somewhat pessimistic at the time of the original legislation, but it seems to have been largely successful. However, the work is not quite over. I hope the Minister can instil confidence that unresolved issues are indeed being addressed, as a risk to financial stability remains.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath for securing this debate. I too wish him well with his recovery. I am grateful to other noble Lords for their contributions. I recognise the work my noble friend has done to raise the profile of issues relating to Libor. However, it would of course be inappropriate for me to comment on any specific cases.
As we have heard, Libor is a benchmark which seeks to reflect the rate at which banks lend to each other in wholesale markets. It has been important historically not just for how our financial services industry operates but for mortgage holders, borrowers and lenders in households and businesses across the country and internationally. At its height, approximately $400 trillion of financial contracts referenced Libor. It was published in all major currencies, including the dollar, sterling, yen, the euro and the Swiss franc, and for various time periods. As noble Lords have described, in 2012, it emerged that Libor was being manipulated for financial gain, in what became known as the Libor scandal.
To digress slightly, I want to reiterate the point that this Government’s position on financial market abuse is clear: it undermines the integrity of public markets, reduces public confidence in them and impairs the effectiveness of financial markets. Therefore, those found guilty of such an offence should be held to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether we had a figure for the overall impact of Libor manipulation. I do not believe that we do, but the seriousness with which we took this issue and the response by the regulators and law enforcement show that, even without such a figure, we appreciate the scale of what was implied by the scandal.
I am sure we will have much more detailed debates on these issues in the forthcoming Financial Services and Markets Bill but I reassure the noble Baroness that it is a question not of deregulating the markets but of improving the regulation and having regulation that is better tailored to the UK. We have the opportunity to look at what works in this country rather than across 27 different jurisdictions. That is the spirit in which the Government are taking forward that Bill. I hope that provides some reassurance.
Following the subsequent government-commissioned Wheatley review and the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Libor came under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FCA in 2013. This led to significant improvements to the regulation and governance of Libor. However, following the 2008 financial crisis, the ways in which banks raised short-term capital changed fundamentally. In particular, banks increasingly moved away from borrowing from other banks to fulfil funding needs. As a result, the unsecured interbank lending market, which Libor seeks to measure, became increasingly shallow.
Furthermore, in light of fundamental changes to bank capital-raising, in 2014 the G20’s Financial Stability Board declared that the continued use of Libor represented a
“serious source of … systemic risk”
and encouraged national authorities and financial institutions to move to alternative rates. In line with this transition plan, in 2017 the FCA announced that Libor would be published only until the end of 2021. Since then, the Government, the FCA and the Bank of England have worked together to support a market-led transition away from Libor.
As noble Lords in this Room will know, because the two noble Lords opposite me were here for the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021 and, unlike me, for the Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Act 2021, these gave the FCA the power to compel the production of synthetic Libor rates. I note that on the basis of the framework the wind-down of Libor is progressing well. Synthetic Libor provides for continuity of a Libor setting for up to 10 years. This is for the benefit of the contracts which have proved very difficult to transition—the tough legacy contracts; in other words, it is a safety net for tough legacy contracts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that synthetic Libor is no longer available. That is not quite correct. Since the end of 2021, we have seen a greater than anticipated reduction in the overall stock of Libor-referencing contracts, but synthetic Libor remains available where it is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about additional steps the Treasury and regulators have taken to assist those who are unable to transition in time. The synthetic Libor rates for certain sterling and yen settings are there for the benefit of those who were unable to transition. The FCA will consider the data on remaining exposures when taking decisions on how long to continue its rates.
The noble Lord asked specifically about when a final decision on the winding-up of the synthetic three-month sterling Libor rate will be taken and how much notice will be provided. Over the summer the FCA published consultations on the future of the remaining Libor rates. In line with its requirement to consult on its decisions relating to synthetic Libor, the FCA will respond to the consultations in due course, but it understands and factors in the need to ensure that adequate notice is provided.
The synthetic rates for sterling and yen Libor seek to replicate as far as possible the economic outcomes that would have been achieved under Libor’s panel bank methodology. The FCA selected a methodology in line with the global consensus of firms and regulators, including extensive domestic consultation.
As many noble Lords will know, the synthetic sterling rate is calculated using the Bank of England’s sterling overnight index average—SONIA—which is administered by the Bank of England and, importantly, is based on approximately £60 billion worth of actual transactions of the interest rates that banks pay tomorrow, sterling overnight from other financial institutions and institutional investors each day. This means that SONIA is far more robust and resilient to any risks of manipulation, such as those seen before 2012. By imposing a synthetic methodology based on SONIA, the FCA can provide more time for certain legacy contracts to move to alternative benchmarks, thus reducing the risk of disruption.
The Libor benchmark has been globally important for many years, not just for those who work in financial services but for people across the country and around the globe. But, given the fundamental changes in global finance in the past 20 years, it has been appropriate to transition away from Libor safely and predictably. The UK is the home of Libor and has taken action to support the global, market-led transition away from it, reaffirming our commitment to being a trusted custodian of a global financial services sector.
The work of the UK authorities to encourage the transition away from Libor has been highly successful so far. For instance, of the estimated £30 trillion of sterling Libor exposures outstanding at the beginning of 2021, estimates show that less than 1% now remain on synthetic sterling Libor. I hope that that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s question about the estimated number of unresolved cases. If we had not played the role that we did, the disorderly cessation of Libor could have presented a significant global financial stability risk because of the vast number and variety of contracts that reference it.
My noble friend Lord James asked what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the Libor system remains available. I hope that I have been clear about why the Government have taken the action they have to ensure a smooth and orderly wind-down of Libor. The Government continue to encourage transition away from Libor to more robust risk-free rates, such as the Bank of England’s SONIA. The Question also referred to the risk of the collapse of interbank lending. The interbank lending market that Libor seeks to measure is of course just one way that banks can fund themselves. Banks have a range of possible sources of funding available to them, including savers’ retail deposits and investors’ wholesale funding, as well as the banks’ capital base. As I said, the way in which banks fund themselves has fundamentally changed since 2008.
Of course, the other thing that has changed since 2008 is that the banking sector is substantially more resilient than before the financial crisis, with higher levels of capital and liquidity. This is because of reforms introduced after the financial crisis that require banks to hold more capital and reduce their reliance on short-term funding, such as interbank lending. For example, banks are now required to hold enough liquid assets to meet their projected outflows for at least the next 30 days, and to have enough funding with a maturity of greater than a year to fund their assets.
In addition, I reassure noble Lords that the Bank of England has a range of tools and facilities that can be called upon to support bank liquidity in the event of market stress, including liquidity insurance facilities, which are used to ensure that it achieves its financial stability objectives. These facilities can be called upon if banks stop lending to each other in the event of market stress.
To conclude, overall, the reforms introduced since 2008 have increased the financial stability of the system and will prevent the costs of banks failing from falling upon taxpayers. The sensible management of the wind-down of Libor is vital not only to the integrity of the UK’s markets but to the UK’s credibility internationally. We have worked closely with international partners in the approach that we have taken, and we received praise from them for that. The Government will continue to engage with regulators to ensure a smooth ultimate end to this transition and, in doing so, underline the UK’s reputation as a well-regulated and effective global financial centre.
Human Rights: India
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hussain
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of human rights in India, particularly in Kashmir.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. Human rights are universal, and Britain is known to be a champion of human rights around the world. As parliamentarians of this country, it is our moral duty to highlight abuses of these rights wherever they occur.
Today, I will speak on human rights in India and particularly in Indian-administered Kashmir. Amnesty International’s India 2021 report states:
“The authorities used repressive laws to silence critics by curbing freedom of expression both offline and online. Human rights defenders, including activists, journalists, students, lawyers and actors, continued to face intimidation and harassment. Independent investigations revealed a massive unlawful surveillance apparatus being used by the government against human rights defenders, violating their rights to privacy, non-discrimination and data protection. The foreign contribution law was misused to crack down on human rights NGOs. Police and security forces used excessive force against members of minority communities and farmers protesting peacefully against laws on farming. Courts undermined the right to a fair trial and delayed hearing crucial cases involving violations of human rights … Caste-based discrimination and violence against Dalits and Adivasis continued unabated. Vigilante cow protection groups attacked minority communities, adversely affecting their livelihoods.”
The report goes into detailed examples and is available online for everyone to read.
The human rights situation in India has also been highlighted by Gregory Stanton, the founder and director of Genocide Watch, an expert who predicted the massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda years before it took place in 1994. During a US congressional briefing in January 2022, he said that there were early “signs and processes” of genocide in the Indian state of Assam and Indian-administered Kashmir.
Stanton said that genocide was not an event but a process and drew parallels between the policies pursued by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the discriminatory policies of Myanmar’s Government against Rohingya Muslims in 2017. Among the policies he cited were the revocation of the special autonomous status of Indian-administered Kashmir in 2019, which stripped Kashmiris of the special autonomy they had had for seven decades, and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act the same year, which granted citizenship to religious minorities but excluded Muslims.
I want now to focus on the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir. As many noble Lords know, I am perhaps the only Member of this House who was born in Azad Kashmir—the Pakistan-administered area—and I have family and friends living on both sides of the line of control that divides the state between India and Pakistan. What happens in Kashmir affects me, my family and approximately 1.2 million Britons of Kashmiri origin living in the UK.
Without going too much into the history or politics of the state, I want briefly to remind your Lordships that when the Indian army came to Kashmir in 1947, the Prime Minister of India at that time, Mr Nehru, is on record as saying that the Indian Army was there to protect the lives and property of the Kashmiri people. He took the matter to the United Nations and obtained UN resolutions promising Kashmiris the right of self-determination through a plebiscite. Mr Nehru promised the Kashmiris and the whole world that, as soon as peace was restored, his forces would withdraw, and Kashmiris would decide their own destiny. He further said:
“At the end, even if they decide to stay separate from India, we will swallow that bitter pill.”
In 75 years, India has deviated from the UN resolutions and increased its army deployed in Kashmir to nearly 900,000, with special powers granted under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. In these 75 years, more than 100,000 Kashmiri civilians have been killed and many more detained and tortured. According to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission on Human Rights and many other credible organisations, Indian security forces are reported to be involved in illegal detentions, torture, extrajudicial killing, fake encounters, rape and murder with complete impunity under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. An Amnesty International report called A ‘Lawless Law’ throws light on some chilling facts of rape and torture. The widely reported and documented case of the Kunan Poshpora gang rape is an example of brutality committed with complete impunity.
The New York-based human rights group Human Rights Watch, in its recent report, said:
“The authorities have invoked the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, as well as terrorism allegations, to conduct raids and arbitrarily detain journalists, activists, and political leaders without evidence and meaningful judicial review. The authorities have also barred several prominent Kashmiris from traveling abroad without providing reasons … In November 2021, the authorities arrested a prominent Kashmiri human rights activist, Khurram Parvez,”
who is 44 years old,
“on politically motivated charges under … the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) … He has documented cases of enforced disappearances and investigated unmarked graves in Kashmir,”
and as a result the Indian authorities have detained him. The report continues:
“Journalists in Kashmir face increasing harassment by security forces, including raids and arbitrary arrests on terrorism charges. Authorities in India have shut down the internet more often than anywhere else in the world. A majority of those shutdowns have been in Kashmir, where they are used to curb protests and access to information … In March 2021 … UN expert mandates wrote to the Indian government seeking information about the detention of a Kashmiri politician, Waheed Para; the alleged killing in custody of a shopkeeper, Irfan Ahmad Dar; and the enforced disappearance of Naseer Ahmad Wani, a resident of Shopian district. They raised concerns about ‘the repressive measures and broader pattern of systematic infringements of fundamental rights used against the local population, as well as of intimidations, searches, and confiscations committed by national security agents.’”
According to the UNHCR, thousands of mass graves have been discovered and need to be investigated. In its 2018 and 2019 reports, the UNHCR asked for free access to investigate these reports of human rights abuses, but India has refused to co-operate.
According to a Kashmiri NGO called the Legal Forum for Kashmir, 26 prominent Kashmiri political leaders and clerics are detained under the public safety Act, UAPA and similar draconian laws. They include Shabir Shah, detained for more than 32 years; Asiya Andrabi, in prison since 2018; and Masarat Alam Bhat, detained for more than 20 years. The Legal Forum for Kashmir has also produced a list containing names and details of 872 Kashmiri youths and political activists held in detention, most of them under the PSA or similar laws. I am willing to share these lists with the Minister and urge him to raise these cases with the Indian Government for their release.
Taking the above information into account, I ask the Minister the following questions. First, can he assure the Committee that our future free trade deal with India will be linked with human rights? If not, why not? Secondly, will he ensure that India is included in the FCDO’s annual list of countries with human rights concerns? Thirdly, considering the reports of Genocide Watch seriously, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to prevent a genocide in Kashmir? Finally, does he consider the UN resolutions on Kashmir of 1948 and 1949 to still be relevant? If so, what will our Government do to help implement them?
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for initiating this debate. It will provide us with an opportunity to talk about the great diversity that is found in India, which is one of the most religiously and culturally diverse countries on the planet. I am a frequent visitor to India, encouraging greater partnership and collaboration between it and the UK. Both countries believe in the strength and importance of this relationship. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, alluded to, there will be a free trade deal between our two great nations. That trade deal will be based on a lot of issues. I will come to his point on human rights a little later.
In all my visits to India over many decades, I have seen an economic growth success story that many in the world would envy, as India stands as the fifth-largest economy in the world. There has not been a decline in minority populations in India. Every person is allowed to speak freely and in no fear of being persecuted, kidnapped or murdered. Incitement to hatred is a crime, whether here in the UK or in India, and any incitement that brings populations on to the streets to kill is dangerous.
Therefore, when I hear about the so-called atrocities and persecutions, I ask a number of questions. Where are the voices speaking on behalf of the thousands of Kashmiri Pandits and their families who were murdered or driven away from their homes in 1989? They were indigenous Kashmiris; 80% were driven out of their homes by mobs taking instructions from external powers. It would be really appreciated if the noble Lord and others would speak up and defend those people fleeing their homes.
Recently I spoke to the Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir. He is very keen to see the state building on investment that is now beginning to appear as the state becomes safer and more stable. Some $7.5 billion has been invested in a range of sectors in recent years. The highest railway bridge in the world is being built in Kashmir. We are keen to be part of that growth and investment story and I encourage British companies to work towards building those closer ties and to work with our friends in Jammu and Kashmir.
On a wider point about India, I have been told that in Punjab there is going to be built one of the largest churches in the country, possibly the subcontinent. There has been no decline in minority populations. The Indian census shows that, decade on decade, the number of people from minority communities in India has increased. That cannot be said for India’s neighbouring countries, where temples and churches have been destroyed and minority communities have been persecuted and driven out.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, that as parliamentarians we have a duty to speak up where we find any form of abuse. But it has to be right that we highlight it wherever it occurs. I stand up often to defend women and girls and human rights in Iran. I stand up often to defend the rights of the tribal people in India, because I believe everybody has a right to be treated fairly by every state on the planet, but there seems to be silence when it comes to the countries that really do abuse minority communities. There may be reports by Amnesty and others, but I would like to see the evidence that is collected before I support any report, because I know, as a recent and keen visitor to India, the progress that is being made by every person there.
The noble Lord alluded to 2019. All central laws have now been extended to Jammu and Kashmir. That means that every single person has the same rights in any part of India. That must be right. It must be right that, if you are a homosexual, you have equal rights in Jammu and Kashmir, as you would across India, and that women have land inheritance rights, just like they do across India.
These discussions need be fair and informed when we have them, without one side believing that only one part of the community in India is persecuted, because I will stand up and fight for everyone’s human rights. That means that we have an honest debate.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I have lived and worked in India, but I have never had the opportunity to visit Kashmir, which is my loss. It also explains why I am not qualified to speak about one of the most difficult questions in foreign policy. However, I have learned from what the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, said, and I hope he will forgive me if I focus on other issues concerning human rights. I take the noble Baroness’s point about balance.
One of the issues is, of course, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, which the noble Lord mentioned, which also affects Kashmiris. It led to violent communal riots in Delhi and Assam, costing many lives. It specifically excluded Muslim refugees from Indian citizenship and was condemned for that by the UN and human rights groups, as well as Indian Muslim leaders, as discriminatory. I have given examples of the treatment of minorities and castes in previous debates so I do not want to repeat them today, but I expect that the Minister will confirm that discrimination against Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits, Adivasis and others remains a major concern of the FCDO and that human rights come up in regular discussions with South Block.
The Minister will know that the 10th EU-India human rights dialogue was held on 15 July in New Delhi. According to the communiqué, India and the EU reiterated their commitment to protecting all human rights. Unfortunately, such a dialogue leads to some very bland statements. Has Brexit opened up any more meaningful dialogue than the one we had through the EU? It is true that we have a long association with India, but “full and frank exchanges” do not necessarily mean action, even between friends.
In this context, the new FTA with India provides another good opportunity to develop our friendship, which we have already debated in the Chamber. I declare my interest as a member of our International Agreements Select Committee. I am also concerned about civil society in India and in the UK, especially those concerned with development and the many NGOs in both countries that attempt to address human rights violations.
One of these is the Trade Justice Movement, which represents about 60 organisations and has studied the FTA in some detail. It argues that development and human rights should have a much higher priority in trade agreements. Many people believe that, including some in the Foreign Office. The Trade Justice Movement refers to disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrests, surveillance of citizens, and the listing of academics, journalists and lawyers as enemies of the state. It mentions the Scottish Sikh, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained since 2017, tortured and held without charge.
The movement uses the interesting phrase of “aligning” development and the environment with trade, but the DIT is not so sure that any of these things belong with trade. The so-called Diwali deal is taking a long time to negotiate, not surprisingly, because of the range and depth of the issues. The aspirations expressed in various DIT showcasing documents contain many references to subjects such as climate change, labour rights and human rights—although the latter appears rather less—but these are unlikely to appear in the final version of the deal. Other possible overlaps with trade of much interest to India are mobility, temporary work visas and perhaps the use of aid funds for refugees, but these may not end up in the FTA either. The DIT scoping assessment says that the UK and India have already ratified most of the international human rights treaties and comments dryly:
“Recently it has become more common for FTAs to include provisions related to human rights, although it is not possible to assess the exact impact of an agreement on human rights prior to the conclusion of negotiations.”
Clearly, at this point the DIT is not concerned about human rights in India but only about the impact of the agreement.
The very sad case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt shows that the FCDO can take up the case of victims of human rights abuses, including prisoners of conscience, where there is a direct UK connection. The Minister will be well aware that Alaa has been held for many years and his case has been widely publicised. World leaders, while negotiating climate issues, were challenging President al-Sisi’s appalling treatment of Alaa. India is arguably a much closer friend than Egypt and we should be able to discuss human rights issues much more openly, without jeopardising our trade deal.
Lord Ranger (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for bringing the topic of human rights to the House’s attention again and again, and for giving us an opportunity to reflect on what is going on around India.
The noble Lord lives in a country where equality for all is guaranteed, regardless of race, religion or gender, yet he advocates for the majority population of Kashmir to be able to use religion to devalue their fellow Kashmiris of different faiths, as was done in Pakistan without a referendum. Sadly, minorities there are persecuted daily and do not enjoy equality even today. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, knows that Hindus were the first settlers in Kashmir. Then, the rest came. If they have become a majority, that does not mean that those who were there before should now be dispelled.
Incidentally, I am a reject of Pakistan. I was born there, but was rejected on the basis of my religion. My father was killed for opposing the break-up of India on the basis of religion. We were made refugees in the country of our birth. We arrived on a refugee train to India as destitute people, because our property was taken by the majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, has conveniently forgotten the citizens of Bangladesh and how, in 1971, they won the election and were denied the result. Instead, they were massacred. Two million Bengalis were killed because of their race. Millions of women were raped because of their race. Where was the noble Lord then? Did he raise his voice to say that democracy had been abused and the rights of people had been—
Lord Ranger (Con)
I did not interrupt the noble Lord when he was speaking. I am so proud that our country, India, where I was raised, intervened and saved the future of the Bengali people. If India had not intervened, I shudder to think what would have been their plight today.
I have brought some statistics to show that religion does not keep people together. If religion had that force, the people of Bangladesh would not have suffered, and east Pakistan would still be part of Pakistan.
Kashmiri people are now benefiting from the development of the fifth-largest economy in the world. Every company in the world is investing in India; there are a lot of opportunities. We have just heard that the FTA between our two countries is in the offing. That will bring more benefit to the people of Kashmir. Kashmiris have a huge market of 1.3 billion people, and the standard of living is rising all the time. India is investing a record amount of money in Kashmir, opening universities, airports, hospitals, schools, colleges—you name it. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, just has to see what is next door to Kashmir, and see the state between the two. He just has to fly to see the number of lights emitting from the ground below.
Finally, no religious country can progress while systematically discriminating against any section of its population because of their religion. Sadly, no scientific, technological or medical innovation has come out of such countries to benefit humanity; only scholars of religion spreading hatred. Look at this great country, where the noble Lord and I are sitting because the Christian majority population is not using religion to keep us down.
Using religion to divide humanity brings religion into disrepute. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, will promote living in peace and harmony regardless of race, religion and gender. Let us learn from history and never encourage more religious hatred. Let us condemn cross-border terrorism, which has turned a paradise into what has just been described: people killed daily because a worthless terrorist can come and surprise everybody. Let us make Kashmir a real paradise by condemning terrorism of any shape and form. There can be no place for terrorists in the world.
Kashmiri people are free to form political parties and select their leaders and Government. What they cannot do is use religion to devalue their fellow Kashmiris. They have freedom in every other part of India. How would the noble Lord feel if other states did that against Muslim minorities? In fact, everywhere in India, equality is enshrined in its constitution. What will be the state of women in Kashmir? Can noble Lords imagine? I am the child of a single parent. If my mother was not educated or empowered, I would not be standing here and I would not have received eight Queen’s awards on merit, competing with the best in Britain.
Let us not use religion to put people in straitjackets. Let us allow people to breathe. In which religious country would the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, like to live? He lives in this country, so he should follow this principle.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, I have great respect for the people of India and its constitution. Resilience and joy can be found there, sometimes even in the harshest of conditions, and the constitution, which was the work of Dr Ambedkar, recognises the equality of every citizen. It is indeed a country of many diverse communities, with Muslims, Christians and Sikhs among the minorities, but all those minority groups, in one way or another, feel under pressure at the moment.
I will briefly focus on two areas, which are often interlinked. First, in recent years, those who raise their voices to protest against the direction the state is taking, or even to ask questions about it, are increasingly and systematically silenced and sometimes even imprisoned. For example, even academics in the course of their work are being put under pressure. If their work touches on a sensitive subject, they are forced to withdraw from speaking at conferences and seminars.
Unbelievably, this has happened to academics in this country. One was Lindsay Bremner, professor of architecture and cities at the University of Westminster, who recently arrived in India with a valid research visa but was told that she could not enter the country and was bundled on to an aeroplane hours later. Filippo Osella, professor of anthropology and south Asian studies at the University of Sussex, had a similar experience when he was turned away at the border in March despite having a valid research visa and having had no previous trouble in 30 years of travelling to Kerala for fieldwork.
India prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, but there is no democracy without freedom of speech. As George Orwell put it, if it means anything at all, it means telling people what they do not want to hear. Freedom to follow and speak the truth is fundamental to all academic life.
In terms of balance, and I hope I am as balanced as anybody in this House, there are many countries—more than half the world—with human rights records far worse than India’s, and I am often among those who speak up against what is happening in other countries, but India should see that what is happening now is against its own highest standards. The great Amartya Sen, in his book The Argumentative Indian, maintained that serious discussion and disagreement had in the past been a fundamental part of Indian life. Against that standard, we have to ask: what is happening now when even academics are not being allowed to speak at conferences? Will the Government urge upon India the absolute necessity of allowing free debate, not least for academics?
The other area of particular concern at the moment is the justice system, which in some areas is deeply flawed; for example, political prisoners are being denied bail and imprisoned for long periods awaiting trial. Last year, Father Stan Swamy, a Catholic priest and tribal activist, who was 84 and suffering from Parkinson’s, was denied bail and died in prison. Similarly, there are prisoners in the Bhima Koregaon case who have been refused bail on health grounds and are still awaiting trial. They include trade unionists, human rights activists, lawyers and academics. Among them are Vernon Gonsalves, Gautam Navlakha and Dr GN Saibaba. These trials continue to be delayed by the Indian courts.
More long-standing is the case of Dr GN Saibaba, a Delhi University professor of English. Saibaba, a long-time activist for the rights of India’s vulnerable indigenous people and other oppressed communities, was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017. Professor Saibaba has post-polio syndrome, is wheelchair-bound and suffers from numerous health issues. Over the seven years of Professor Saibaba’s imprisonment, he has been denied adequate medical care on numerous occasions. There are others. There is Pandu Narote, an Adivasi person, who was convicted alongside him, who died in prison in August this year aged only 35 after contracting swine flu as a result of medical neglect. There is Prashant Rahi, a journalist and legal activist who is also suffering in prison and has health needs that are not being adequately attended to. All this is apart from the long-standing problem of Dalits getting recourse to justice when their village has been attacked.
Will the Government raise some of these issues, not least in connection with the trade deal? I agree with other noble Lords that we do not want to see a trade deal going through that does not take into account the absolute importance of the observance of human rights in India as elsewhere in the world.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I, along with the Minister of course, have been discussing human rights within Europe, including Ukraine. Later, we will do so on China and, in the context of the debate that my noble friend has brought to us today, it is right that we discuss human rights relations with our close partner, India. In debating all three areas, we understand the complexities that exist, as well as the power of history. But that should not blind us to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, indicated or allow us to ignore what our contemporary relations are within our key trading relationships. I will come back to that before I close.
India is a much-valued ally of the UK, with enormously deep historical and contemporary ties in all parts of the UK—every single corner of our country. Our long-term future in the world as the UK is linked with the ongoing development of India itself in the global economy, in development support, in research and development and in education and skills. There is no part of the UK’s future on which India will not have an influence. Of course, that includes democratic development and the ever-advancing universality of human rights and freedoms, but it does not mean that we are silent within this partnership on those areas that have been brought to our attention today.
We strive continuously to share common values and I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, about their universal nature. I also share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who indicated that when it comes to LGBTQI+ and women’s rights, we should have common threads in our relationships with all partners. In that regard, for example, it has been regrettable that India has resumed executions and the death penalty over recent years. There are areas where we will signal that the UK has a different approach but we want to work with our allies and friends in development, not least in sharing areas of common values, such as openness, tolerance and, of course, human rights. The concerns raised today are therefore relevant in the current climate.
I will refer, as I have repeatedly in debates on human rights, to the Government’s Human Rights and Democracy Report. I commend officials in the FCO and FCDO who have put those reports together over recent years. The examples that I will relate are drawn from that FCDO report, and there is no question about the areas highlighted in it. I put on record at this point my support for the Minister’s work as Minister for Human Rights—he has taken responsibility in this region—and the work that he has done to advance the human rights agenda of the United Kingdom. But, as the Government themselves have indicated and reported, some of the areas where we see a trend in the wrong direction have resulted from the Covid crisis and the more repressive nature of some of the lockdowns that existed. The Government were right, in my view, to highlight some of those.
In the wider trading relationship, the Government have highlighted some of the challenges that exist on the lack of respect for ILO or labour rights in areas such as trafficking and garment production, as well as the lack of implementation of some international obligations on modern slavery and forced labour. I absolutely recognise that this is not unique to India and that therefore our work in those areas has been with regional partners in Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, the Government also highlighted some concerning areas with regard to the restriction on those who have highlighted human rights concerns, including the restrictions on Amnesty International and its categorisation under domestic legislation within India. There are also areas where NGOs have struggled to highlight some of their concerns.
Let me address the point that I referenced earlier with regard to our trade relations. The Committee will not be surprised to know that I hold the UK’s trading relations with India on a par with all other areas where I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others—indeed, the whole House—have resolved that the Government should have a trade and human rights policy, which should be reflected in all our agreements.
When we debated the prospective UK-India free trade agreement, we raised human rights concerns, the lack of stakeholder consultation, the lack of a full review by the Government of human rights and trade, and the lack of clarity over whether the Government are seeking triggering mechanisms in chapters on human rights within the prospective trade agreement with India. It is fair to ask the Government for there to be more clarity in this area—on how a trade agreement with India could advance areas such as core UN and ILO human rights conventions, and how we will work with India on moving towards full ratification of the convention against torture, to which it is a signatory. When it comes to investment and trading relations, this should be seen as a positive, but human rights should be an integral part of it, not a secondary element.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for initiating this debate. Of course, it has reminded us that India is the world’s largest democracy and will always remain a close ally of the United Kingdom, underpinned, as we have heard, by the close social, economic and cultural ties that we enjoy. Perhaps it is because of that close relationship and shared ties that we should continue to stand up for human rights everywhere, and call out human rights violations wherever they exist, including in Kashmir. A peaceful dialogue and respect for human rights, with India and Pakistan working together, is the only way that a political solution can be achieved. All parties should refrain from unilateral decisions, which make the process of building a lasting peace more difficult.
The conflict in Kashmir is more than 70 years long and is the longest unresolved conflict on the agenda of the United Nations. We will continue to respect UN resolutions on this issue. As the Minister for the United Nations, can the Minister update the Committee on whether the UK mission is involved in any efforts to monitor resolutions relating to Kashmir?
Of course, we should look beyond Kashmir to wider human rights violations which persist elsewhere in India, including violence against religious minorities and other vulnerable communities. Can the Minister offer an assessment of recent levels of violence and the safety of religious minorities?
The United Kingdom—as all noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, have stressed—must be a strong advocate for human rights wherever they are under threat, and that always means supporting a free press and a strong civil society. They, rather than politicians and Governments, are often the guarantors of human rights.
I have raised previously with the Minister the question of media freedom, particularly in Kashmir. I hope he can update us on the FCDO’s recent efforts to secure this and what protections we are able to offer. I echo the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about civil society and hope that the Minister can update us on the steps taken by the department to engage with civil society groups in India and Kashmir, including those representing workers, women’s groups and religious minorities.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a very insightful debate. I will try to respond to most of the points raised and, in the usual manner, will extend courtesies on any specific questions that I am not able to answer in the time allocated. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for tabling this debate.
Before I go any further into what is in front of me, I want to reflect on points made by my noble friends Lord Ranger and Lady Verma. A nation’s rich diversity reflects its strength—a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and our country is reflective of exactly that quality. At a time when we celebrate our first Prime Minister of the Hindu faith, it is amusing for me—as someone of the Muslim faith whose heritage extends to India on my paternal and maternal sides—that in the case of our Prime Minister, who is Hindu by faith, his maternal and paternal sides extend to modern-day Pakistan, in Gujranwala. That shows the rich diversity but also the hope and opportunity that lie in the relationships and the importance of bridge building between communities, not just here in the United Kingdom but across the Indian subcontinent—an area I know well, both through my personal links and, importantly, as the Minister responsible for that region.
I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that here in the UK we pride ourselves on speaking out whenever we see a violation of human rights, anywhere in the world and on whatever issue. The greatest challenge we all face is when we stand up on human rights violations that are reflective not of our own values, personal beliefs or religion but those of others. That is the real test. I often say that being the Minister for Human Rights for the United Kingdom is the proudest part of my brief but also, arguably, the most challenging.
My noble friend Lady Verma talked of her strong advocacy for human rights. On a personal level, I have experienced that for well over 25 years. She has been a guardian of my personal human rights in all aspects of my life. Examples in all noble Lords’ contributions demonstrate how live we are to these important issues. I therefore align myself with the principles and values that have been a thread—a human rights golden thread, if I can put it that way—through every contribution.
As we have made clear time and again, including in our integrated review, open societies and human rights should and do remain a priority for the United Kingdom, as the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, rightly pointed out. Our security and prosperity are best served by a world in which democratic societies flourish and fundamental human rights are protected and, indeed, strengthened.
I turn to India. Many are rightly proud of their country’s inclusive institutions, Governments, rich history and constitution. That is important. I have always said that when we approach the issue of human rights and seek to raise it, wherever that may be in the world, we must apply the lens of the challenges and where a country is on its human rights journey at that point in time. As we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Ranger, who would have been in this Room 105 years ago? There would be no women and arguably no people of other faiths or people openly professing their sexuality. That shows that our own country has been on a journey when it comes to human rights. Therefore, it is right that we look at a country’s journey but also its institutions and constitutions and the protections it affords. Just as we are proud of our democracy and institutions here in the UK, I know from direct engagement with the Government of India, including on the issue of human rights, how proud they are of their constitutions and institutions as protectors and guardians of human rights.
Our values and our vibrant democracies sit at the heart of the UK-India comprehensive strategic partnership and our 2030 road map for future relations. The road map, which several noble Lords alluded to, guides our co-operation and covers all aspects of our multifaceted relationship. We set out our shared belief in the importance of democratic norms and principles, and respect for universal human rights. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has underlined the importance of protecting human rights.
I assure the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that we do raise human rights issues and the consular cases he referred to, including the case of Mr Johal. I know on how many occasions I raised that during my time as Minister for India. We need to ensure that we raise the rights of British citizens who are held. Equally, when we raise human rights we do so in a constructive and candid manner. The strength of our relationship with India allows us to do so.
We know that India is the world’s largest democracy and has long traditions, but we look to India to uphold all freedoms and rights guaranteed in its constitution, as with all democracies including ours. Indeed, that is the analysis and the point that I expect to be put about our own values and human rights here in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom engages with India on a range of human rights issues. Of course, we recognise the nature of the human rights situation across India. As my noble friend Lady Verma pointed out, India is not a homogenous country. It has so many religions and cultures. I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I think there are still more Muslims in India than there are in either Pakistan or Bangladesh. That shows the rich diversity of the nation when it comes to religion. There are constitutional protections for places of worship. Indeed, the 1989 constitutional protection for places of worship stands very strongly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, that we have a wide network through our high commission, Ministers and our network of deputy high commissions because of the nature and breadth of India. Indeed, we recently heard that India will become the most populous country in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, spoke about strengthening ties with civil society. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, mentioned Amnesty International and other human rights groups. Only earlier this week I met with human rights groups as part of my regular engagement with them to ensure that their concerns, which are sometimes aired privately on specific issues, can be highlighted so that we can take them up constructively with Governments around the world, including the Indian Government. Recently I spoke with the high commissioner of India; human rights form a regular part of that dialogue.
As today’s debate has shown, it is clear that Kashmir is a topic close to the hearts of many. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, spoke very personally about his ties across the line of control. We are lucky to have 1.7 million British citizens of Indian heritage living here in the UK, and a similar number with Pakistani heritage. There is sometimes even an argument about who qualifies under which category, which perhaps shows the strong, binding nature of cultural ties between the two countries. India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom, and we have significant links with both countries, particularly through the diaspora communities.
The Government take the situation, and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, very seriously. He talked about resolutions, as did the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Our position remains exactly as before: it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the United Kingdom to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator. This position is not new; it has been the consistent position of successive British Governments.
We welcomed the renewal of the ceasefire along the line of control in February last year, and we encourage both sides to find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain regional stability. At a time when people often talk about problems, I always look at the challenges we face and the role that the United Kingdom can play in terms of opportunity and hope. I know that my noble friend Lord Ranger has visited and knows this quite directly. The Kartarpur corridor provides a profound example of what can be achieved with the right intent between two Governments doing something for the right reasons.
Human rights concerns in India-administered Kashmir are raised with me, as they are about Pakistan-administered Kashmir. As I said, we raise these directly with the respective Governments of India and Pakistan. I assure noble Lords that these form part of our bilateral relationships as well.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Hussain, talked about human rights in negotiations and the trade agreement with India. The Government’s international obligations and commitments, including on human rights, will remain paramount when we make decisions on all trading relations. We are also clear that more trade will not come at the expense of workers or the environment.
While trade discussions continue, I assure noble Lords that as we discuss the importance of strengthening our road map, whether on trade, investment, technological co-operation or improving lives and livelihoods in India and the UK, the issue of lives and livelihoods is intrinsically tied to the whole concept of human rights. We continue to engage on an ambitious free trade agreement.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, talked about the Diwali agreement. There is good progress on many chapters and we will continue to discuss these issues directly. Indeed, my right honourable friend did so with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar during his recent visit to India.
There have been other areas of partnership with India over recent years, including co-operation over Covid-19 and the co-operation we have had on trade, education partnerships and climate change. Those areas will continue to be raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, raised some specific issues on the human rights report. I am proud that we produce reports on this issue. The noble Lord asked about other countries, including India. The decision on whether a country is designated in that report is based on the trajectory of change, the UK’s potential work on human rights and where we have influence. At this time, we judge that it is not appropriate to designate India in the human rights report. However, as I said—I emphasise this point—where we have concerns, we will raise them.
My noble friend Lord Ranger raised the issue of the Kashmiri Pandits. Of course, that is important. As we look at human rights issues, we need to be consistent across the piece. I assure my noble friend that those issues form part and parcel of our engagement.
This is extremely important. I am sure we will return to issues of human rights across the world—including very shortly in our next debate. I welcome our continued engagement on this issue. India matters to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom matters to India. Our relationship with India, as democracies and friends, is built on important pillars, such as strengthening trade. We are two key democracies where the rule of law matters and we will continue to have candid, constructive exchanges on issues of human rights. That will remain an important pillar in our relationships. This matters to me and to all noble Lords who have expressed their views today. It matters to the United Kingdom and, from my engagement with our partners and friends in India, I can assure noble Lords that it matters to India as well.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
As we have a minute or two in reserve, can I just ask a factual question? The Minister cannot answer for the Department for International Trade, clearly, but it would be interesting to know how often on the present trade deal the Foreign Office has intervened. Have there been formal occasions or is it just in chance meetings through the year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Earl that on every FTA we have a very integrated approach with our colleagues in DIT. When we need to raise these issues directly, these are not chance meetings. We are quite structured in our approach, whether through diplomacy or trade.
Human Rights: China
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of allegations of human rights abuses in China.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I approach this debate with a great deal of reticence and, indeed, almost reluctance. I have long admired China and the Chinese people, although one should of course acknowledge that the population of China is made up of 56 different ethnic groups. I have long admired their ancient civilisation. Not only is China a country of great natural beauty; it is the nation that invented the compass, gunpowder, paper, moveable-type printing, kites, fireworks, silk, tea and porcelain, to name a few. I will perhaps omit noodles from my list of admirable inventions. My Chinese friends are among some of the most educated, industrious and cultured people I know. China is the fourth-largest country by land mass and has the largest population of any country in the world. Over many decades, we have developed extensive trade links with China, and it is in its interests and ours for us to share in commerce and seek to find common cause for the good of the world.
Yet I feel I cannot remain silent in the face of such a wide range of human rights abuses. Lying behind our profound differences is a vast cultural gulf that was laid bare most recently for me when I read President Xi’s speech at the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party last month. He said:
“We will … continue to take the correct and distinctively Chinese approach to handling ethnic affairs … We will remain committed to the principle that religions in China must be Chinese in orientation and provide active guidance to religions so that they can adapt to socialist society.”
He also said:
“We have effectively contained ethnic separatists, religious extremists, and violent terrorists”.
To those here who are familiar with China’s history of human rights abuses, these are worrying words.
We have seen the tragedies of the
“distinctively Chinese approach to handling ethnic affairs”
in Xinjiang province and, before that, in the sinicisation of Tibet. We have also seen the consequences of the Chinese Government’s direct influence on religion—I will focus most of my comments on this; I will say a few other things towards the end, but I know that others will range more widely—whether that be through the treatment of Uighur Muslims by forced imprisonment and, reportedly, sterilisation, of Falun Gong, or of Chinese Christians. Similarly, characterising religious adherents as “religious extremists” has become a common part of the Chinese Government’s authoritarian approach. The Chinese state has persecuted many Christian leaders, particularly those who exemplify the values underpinning the Christian faith, such as the affirmation of the dignity of human life, opposition to tyranny and a willingness to stand up for the persecuted.
We have seen China’s approach exemplified with the treatment of Joseph Zen, the 90 year-old cardinal who was arrested in May this year for acting as a trustee to a humanitarian relief fund which helped some pro-democracy protestors. He is currently on trial. Many commentators have described it as a show trial, where he will almost certainly be convicted. What discussions have His Majesty’s Government had with China regarding the release of Cardinal Zen?
The events in Hong Kong over recent years have led to large numbers of citizens leaving to come to the UK. Incidentally, I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Government for the way that that has been and is being handled. I am hugely grateful for that. I have met a good number of Hong Kongers who are now living in my diocese. Quite a number of them have joined our churches and many are already making a wonderful contribution to our national life.
Over the summer, a very old friend who had been working in Hong Kong for a number of years contacted me because he felt it so oppressive and restrictive, and he really had to get out of the country very quickly. He stayed with me for about four months while he was getting his affairs sorted out. He told me that Hong Kong had become so oppressive because of the high levels of surveillance. He told me how he could not even go to church without being filmed and recorded. It no longer felt safe.
This treatment is limited not just to Christians but to anyone who is not prepared to align their faith with the aims and objectives of the Communist Party of China. This has meant the detention of imams, the demolition of mosques and, in some cases, situations where people have been sent to psychiatric hospitals for challenging the Chinese Government’s decision to demolish their religious buildings. In Yunnan province in the south of China, the Chinese Government’s religious affairs bureau has banned children from attending churches with their parents, installed surveillance cameras outside churches to detect children during Sunday services, frozen churches’ bank accounts and removed crosses forcibly.
Article 300 of the Chinese criminal code prohibits the organisation of any religion deemed a “heterodox teaching”. This law has been used to restrict freedom of religion and belief across China. In 2015, this article was revised to include life imprisonment as one optional punishment for participating in any unsanctioned religious group. In the past few years, we have seen Chinese Christians and Falun Gong practitioners arrested, detained and persecuted for practicing their faith, sometimes when they were practising it only in their own homes.
Again, I reiterate that the words of President Xi Jinping last month are an explicit endorsement of measures against individuals and faith groups. Will the Minister tell us His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of these laws and what steps we can take to support people of faith who are being persecuted by the Chinese state?
Although I have chosen to address most of my comments to the subject of religious persecution in China, this is certainly only the tip of the iceberg, and I know other noble Lords will range more widely over other human rights abuses. We all know that China continues to use the death penalty, in some cases for non-violent or political offences, and fails to produce any official statistics about numbers. According to some groups, China has executed around 8,000 people a year since 2007, which, it is estimated, accounts for around 90% of the global total of executions.
Additionally, China has a well-catalogued history of using political psychiatric abuse against dissidents, sending critics of the regime to psychiatric hospitals under the pretence that they are mentally ill. In these institutions, individuals are subject to beatings, forced medication, electroconvulsive therapy and repeated incarceration.
I am not going to say too much more because others will be able to set out the problems. I end by asking the Minister to tell us his assessment of these allegations against the Chinese state and what representations His Majesty’s Government have made to the Chinese Government.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for the—as always—exemplary way in which he spoke to the Committee and introduced today’s debate, and for focusing our attention again on the CCP’s human rights violations. I declare my non-financial interests in the register.
The International Relations and Defence Committee’s report on China, trade and security describes the UK’s China policy as lacking strategic coherence—confusion that was reinforced this week at the G20 summit. During the leadership election, Rishi Sunak said that “for too long” western leaders had
“rolled out the red carpet and turned a blind eye to China’s nefarious activity and ambitions.”
Liz Truss upgraded the UK’s recognition of China from “systemic competitor” to “threat”—as have our allies in the United States—and described China’s actions in Xinjiang as “genocide”.
However, on Tuesday, Mr Sunak was no longer citing the director-general of MI5, who said that that China represents
“the biggest long-term threat to Britain and the world’s economic and national security”,
preferring instead to describe the CCP regime as a “challenge.”
North Korea, Iran and Russia are all described by the FCDO as a threat. Why is China not to be described in the same way? Yesterday, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a former leader of his party, warned the Prime Minister that
“it now looks like we’re drifting into appeasement with China.”
There is an old saying that when you want to understand something you should follow the money. We have been spending literally billions of pounds in China, ratcheting up a trade deficit of some £40 billion. We have seen British taxpayers’ money being spent on goods made in a state that uses slave labour to undercut its competitors and is credibly accused of genocide.
We have now added insult to injury. On 15 November, earlier this week, Will Quince MP confirmed in the House of Commons that the Government are spending £770,000 a day to store 120 million items of PPE in China. That is more than £280 million a year. Think of how that could be used to fund nurses’ salaries, patient care, any number of public services or the promotion of human rights. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much has been spent in total so far, and explain how much longer we will go on paying these exorbitant sums to the CCP regime.
What does all this say about national resilience and dependency? Have we learned nothing from Germany’s dependency on Putin and the consequences of indebtedness? Drifting back to the Cameron-Osborne golden era would be a huge error. It would be a betrayal of all those who suffer at the hands of the CCP: persecuted religious minorities, journalists, human rights defenders, and those who have had the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and association suppressed. It would be a betrayal of all those driven out of their homes in Hong Kong and welcomed to the United Kingdom in an exemplary way by His Majesty’s Government—I agree with the right reverend Prelate. Think of the betrayal of the 50 million victims of the CCP. The Italian scholar, Massimo Introvigne, says:
“No organization in human history killed more human beings than the CCP.”
My question to the Minister is: what has changed in the extremely short period between Liz Truss leaving and Rishi Sunak arriving at No. 10 that justifies this U-turn in relation to China? Have the atrocities against the Uighurs and other Turkic minorities stopped and been proven untrue? Has Hong Kong seen a restoration of democracy? Are Ben Wallace’s comments on Taiwan to the International Relations and Defence Committee part of this new rapprochement? In answer to a question from me, he said:
“It is in China’s plan to reunify Taiwan to mainland China … it is not a secret. Britain wants a peaceful process towards that.”
The 23 million people of Taiwan have never been part of the PRC. Why should we aid and abet that process? Why should we suggest that there is something inevitable about this? Since when has that been an object pursued by His Majesty’s Government?
On Monday I chaired a meeting, here in the House, addressed by Bill Browder and young Hong Kongers. Pleas were made for Magnitsky sanctions against those who have abused human rights, upended democracy, subverted institutions and corrupted the rule of law. Political show trials in Hong Kong have become the norm under the new national security regime, with the verdict in Jimmy Lai’s so-called fraud trial coming next week, as well as the verdict in the trial of the 90 year-old Cardinal Zen, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, and the other trustees of the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund.
Given the growing number of political prisoners in Hong Kong and upcoming national security cases, including that of Jimmy Lai and Apple Daily journalists on 1 December, will the Minister tell the Committee what the Government are willing to do to stand by their legal, moral and historic commitments to Hong Kong and to Jimmy Lai, who is, after all, a United Kingdom citizen? How does the Minister respond to my noble and learned friend Lady Hale, former President of the Supreme Court, who has warned in the last 24 hours of Hong Kong’s “unacceptable laws” and said that British judges should search their consciences and vacate their seats in the Hong Kong courts?
What, too, of the CCP’s subversion of international jurisprudence and bodies? Only a few weeks ago, we saw how the CCP can silence the very UN body that was tasked with accommodating dialogue about human rights violations, the United Nations Human Rights Council, of which China is a member—rather like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. On 6 October the Human Rights Council rejected a proposal, of which the UK was a co-sponsor, to even have a debate on Michelle Bachelet’s findings that “serious human rights violations”, potentially including crimes against humanity, of the Uighur and “other predominantly Muslim communities” may have been committed in Xinjiang. The proposal was defeated by 19 votes to 17, with China’s position supported by those other great champions of human rights: Eritrea, Pakistan, Sudan and Cameroon. Study the links and note that many of those opposing even a debate have a substantial belt-and-road indebtedness to the CCP. How do we intend to take this issue forward? Do we intend to table a resolution at the General Assembly of the UN?
Closer to home, when can we expect the Greater Manchester Police report on the assault of Bob Chan, whom I have met, and other protesters outside the city’s Chinese consulate? What is the Foreign Secretary doing to take action to protect the very rights now denied in Hong Kong, including reports that the CCP is establishing overseas police stations in the United Kingdom? At a meeting this morning, I learned of the harassment of Hong Kong students by mainlanders in Edinburgh and at other universities. What are we doing to protect the human rights of the Hong Kongers who have settled here?
Following the welcome decision yesterday, on security grounds, to prevent the takeover of our biggest producer of semiconductors at Newport Wafer Fab, what assessment have the Minister and the Security Minister, Tom Tugendhat, made of the ambitions to create a mega PRC embassy on the site of the Royal Mint? Will the Minister agree to talk to Mr Tugendhat and ask Michael Gove to consider calling in this application? The deal led to 200 British citizens having the freehold of their homes sold to the Chinese state, over their heads. After what happened in Manchester, and what happens throughout China, families are scared and angry but have been utterly ignored. Will the Minister write to me detailing who brokered the Royal Mint deal, how much money passed hands, and what was the independent valuation of the site?
If the Minister, who is always so kind and generous in dealing with the questions that I put to him, cannot undertake to answer them today, will he at least agree that they are legitimate questions which deserve to be answered and that he will write to me about them? I once again thank the right reverend Prelate for giving us the opportunity to say some of these things.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important and, indeed, most timely debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group.
China has been back in the global spotlight this week, with the attendance of President Xi at the G20 summit in Indonesia. It had been hoped, at least by Downing Street, that this gathering would include a meeting between President Xi and our own Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak—the first encounter between a UK Prime Minister and a Chinese Head of State since 2018. Indeed, No. 10 briefed journalists that Mr Sunak would
“encourage China to use its place on the global stage responsibly to resolve geopolitical tensions, ensure regional stability and play its part in tackling the devastating global impact of the war in Ukraine.”
In the end, that meeting did not take place because of the terrible missile incident in Poland. That was unfortunate—as was the missile incident—because I would have welcomed Mr Sunak’s feedback after meeting his Chinese counterpart.
I cannot recall a United Kingdom Prime Minister ascending to power with so little known about his stance on so many foreign policy issues. His position on the Northern Ireland protocol falls into that category, given that the protocol came about as part of an international agreement. The Answer I received to a Written Parliamentary Question last week did not fill me with any great faith in his expertise on the protocol, since it advised that Mr Sunak failed to visit Northern Ireland even once during his tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, that subject is for another day.
In relation to China, your Lordships will be aware of my long-standing support for the Taiwanese people and my steadfast opposition to the aggressive stance the Chinese state continues to adopt towards them. Your Lordships will be equally conscious of my deep frustration with the weak positions held by a conveyor belt of UK Prime Ministers, who, with the exception of Liz Truss, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, have failed to truly stand up to the Beijing bully boys over Taiwan. Ms Truss can claim some kind of legacy on this issue at least.
It is not just our Prime Ministers who have provided wiggle room for Chinese aggression. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also mentioned, when giving evidence to the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House earlier this month, the United Kingdom Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, a man for whom I generally have the utmost respect, said:
“It is in China’s plan to reunify Taiwan to mainland China. That has been in its 50-year plan, or whatever the plan is called, so it is not a secret. Britain wants a peaceful process towards that.”
That statement surely had President Xi and his coterie rubbing their hands with glee. In contrast, I have no doubt that these words had the good people of Taiwan holding their heads in despair—and, indeed, fear.
The topic of today’s debate is human rights abuses in China. The world is gaining greater awareness of the appalling crimes committed by the Chinese Communist Party regime against the Uighur Muslims, including killings, mass detentions, torture, forced mass sterilisation and cultural persecution.
The United States has accurately described China’s treatment of the Uighurs as genocide, with the Belgian, Canadian, Czech, Lithuanian and Dutch parliaments passing resolutions accusing the Chinese Government of committing genocide against them. So too has the UK Parliament, when a Motion approved in the other place last year resolved that
“Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities … are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide”.
This is the opinion of our Parliament, but unfortunately it is not the formal view of His Majesty’s Government, who instead have held steadfastly to the position
“not to make determinations in relation to genocide”.
I warmly commend my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for bringing forward his Private Member’s Bill, which would enable the High Courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland to make preliminary determinations as to what constitutes genocide, in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the genocide convention. I urge your Lordships to give the noble Lord’s Bill their full support. It will certainly have mine.
Failing to stand up to state-led aggression, sabre-rattling and worse has terrible consequences, as the brave people of Ukraine are experiencing each and every day. Russia invaded Ukraine because President Putin believed he could get away with it. I hold the same fears about President Xi’s attitude towards Taiwan.
I conclude my remarks by referring back to the Defence Secretary’s publicly stated view that His Majesty’s Government are seeking a “peaceful process” towards Taiwanese reunification with China. I put two direct questions to the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard and who has been handed the difficult task of responding to this debate.
First, knowing what we know about ongoing Chinese human rights abuses, in his view why would the Taiwanese people want to be part of a state that commits such heinous crimes against so many of its own people? They are freedom-loving people who would have no say in this.
Secondly, why would our country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, wish to be in any way complicit in further crimes by assenting to what would effectively be a Chinese annexation of Taiwan? I would like to think that we as a nation are better than that. It is just a shame that the current UK Government appear not to agree. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I will touch on Taiwan in a moment, and I commend the work he does in the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group, of which I am a proud member. The noble Lord sought to give us a little detour away from Beijing, to Belfast. I admire him for squeezing that in. After four long days in Committee on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, the Minister will be relieved that I am not asking him about this—although I did ask on a number of occasions what the Prime Minister’s views on the Northern Ireland protocol were.
The right reverend Prelate is to be commended on bringing this debate. He should not have had any reluctance or reticence to bring it to the Grand Committee, because it is of profound importance for the future of our country. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, indicated, on 20 October we debated in Grand Committee the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report on China. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is an esteemed member of that committee, on which I served, and he was absolutely right to say that we were challenging the void in the Government’s strategy on China. Indeed, the terminology in the committee report highlighted a void.
When it comes to the serious issue of Taiwan, of significance are not simply the UK’s foreign relations with Taiwan but the UK’s strategic interests with Taiwan as a major trading partner. We are reliant on technological imports from Taiwan. It is also a significant export partner for some of our key export sectors. Therefore, the consequences of what will happen in the relationship between the PRC and Taiwan are of direct UK interest.
Not only that—there is also a soft power interest. I have been to Taiwan on a number of occasions. On one of my visits, I was there with our former colleague, my noble friend Lord Steel, and we met with President Tsai Ing-wen. She said that it was Lord Steel, as leader of the Liberal Party, who inspired her to be involved in politics in Taiwan; she was studying at LSE at the time. The fact that Taiwan and the UK both have strong, deep views on the principles of democracy and rights is of great importance. Therefore, it is an appropriate prism through which to look at UK relations with China, human rights and China’s increasingly aggressive posture.
I join the right reverend Prelate in saying that the relations between the people of the UK and the people of China are of deep and significant importance. You cannot go to a campus, speak to a business or go to a high street and not see that depth of relationship. But of course, as in our previous debate on our relations with India, that does not mean we should be blind to some of the serious challenges that exist.
In the context of having reviewed the Government’s integrated review and the Minister’s response to the Select Committee, I read the US Department of Defense’s recently published national defence strategy. It now refers to the PRC by highlighting its
“increasingly provocative rhetoric and coercive activity towards Taiwan”
along with the risk of destabilisation, risk miscalculation and threats to peace and stability. It also mentions China’s other abilities, including using cyber and digital technology. The US now considers the PRC as
“the pacing challenge for the Department”.
However the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right that at the same time the UK’s posture is confusing, to say the least. In the debate in the committee, I asked about the status of the China strategy because the Government had said that it was held by the National Security Council. That council was then abolished; now it has apparently been recreated under the Prime Minister. It is interesting that the Government say they have recreated the National Security Council but the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told me that it had not been abolished in the first place. That is a microcosm of the lack of clarity about where we are.
The seriousness of this is that in many of our key sectors, as highlighted by the director-general of MI5, and by me in many of our debates on trade policy and elsewhere, we in the UK are overreliant on imports from China. That dependency is a worry. This is in the absence of a strategic industrial strategy for the UK which would look at digital, ecommerce, privacy, intellectual property and supply chain resilience, as well as some of our key areas. One area we raised in the past is wafer technology. When the Government refused to call in a purchase, we were told repeatedly that there were no concerns. Then after parliamentary pressure, I think, the Government did call it in and the news this week is broadly welcome. That highlights how it does not seem as though BEIS, the Treasury and the FCDO are working in complete alignment.
Last year, I raised the fact that we had the biggest trade deficit on goods imports for any country in our nation’s history. It was more than £40.5 billion. That has declined slightly but by only £2 billion, so we now have a trade deficit with China of £39 billion on imports, which means that we need an industrial strategy and a resilience review across the key sectors. It also means that we should be looking at screening investments by UK firms in some of those key sectors in China. The recent reports that the German Government are operating this should be an indication that we need to do the same. I say this because the latest trade figures with China, published on 2 November, highlight a 20% increase in UK investment in China and Chinese enterprises, including state-owned enterprises. I simply do not know what the Government’s strategy is when we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, what the new Prime Minister had said; now that is represented in the growth of investments in these enterprises.
The final thing I raise regarding Hong Kong and the UK is that the Government have not moved fast or far enough in reviewing what property assets party leaders and state-owned enterprises in Hong Kong have in London and the UK, which individuals have them, how transparent that is and how much they have invested in UK investment funds. I have repeatedly questioned whether any of the agreements signed by David Cameron and President Xi in 2015 have been reviewed, because they offer increased UK market access to Chinese enterprises, including investment in UK pension funds. I do not know whether state-owned enterprises, party leaders or those who have been either directly linked with or complicit in human rights abuses in China are increasing their purchases of British pension funds. Local authorities, individuals and investors need to know. It is the Government’s responsibility to tell us. We need a China strategy as well as resilience, because we cannot simply bemoan human rights abuses in China if we are silent at home.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate, which I welcome. One thing I am certain of is that we will not be able to address all the issues we need to in a one-hour QSD. Nevertheless, this debate is a good agenda-setting point, where we can focus on the direction that we think we should go in. A point that the right reverend Prelate made in his introduction that I would emphasise is not only how important the people of China are, and how important their history, tradition and culture are to the world, but how without China’s engagement and co-operation we will not be able to address the global challenges that we face, particularly climate change and pandemics. Global health is a critical issue for us all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted, the IRDC report on China set out clearly that the Government’s approach has too often reflected a strategic incoherence. As the chair of that committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said in our recent debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also highlighted, it is unclear how the Government intend to balance human rights issues with their economic relationship with China, and how they will prioritise when these considerations clash. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I raised where the strategy sits and who has responsibility. When the Minister replied to the committee’s chair he said that the strategy was being dealt with but through the National Security Council, et cetera. The simple fact is that what we need is not just about government policy, as that report highlighted that all sections of our society—business, civil society and trade unions—need to be aware of how to react to and deal with these things.
The Government have a good record on supply chain issues and modern slavery. I have raised with the Minister on previous occasions my concern that promises to strengthen that seem to be made, but there is no action. I want to know from him what his department is doing to engage with business and civil society on modern slavery and supply chains. That is a critical issue about how we trade with China. No one is suggesting that we can stop trade with China; apart from anything else, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has highlighted how big that trade is. This is not about trade agreements or some of the clauses that we have managed to put into the legislation about trade agreements. It is about procurement and how we help businesses to deal with this issue.
As noble Lords have said, this is a cross-departmental issue. We have the FCDO making clear, positive statements and the Department for International Trade and other Westminster departments saying the complete opposite. That is why we need a coherent strategy. We have the pieces in place; they just need to be joined up.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has been consistent in raising these issues and has suffered because of it. The Chinese Communist Party has decided to sanction him, a parliamentarian, for raising these issues, and we should make note of that.
Our focus has been particularly on the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, who face a brutal campaign of oppression. The right reverend Prelate has raised other issues, particularly religious minorities, but I want to focus on Xinjiang. The UN has said that this may constitute crimes against humanity and, as we know, the House of Commons has voted to recognise this as genocide. It is very clear that we must have stronger action from the Government. Can the Minister highlight not only the actions we have taken at the UN but what we are doing in terms of imports from Xinjiang or a potential ban on cotton that we know is produced by slave labour? This is really important. Many of my noble friends have raised in the Chamber ways we can address that issue more effectively. It requires a firm, strong, consistent approach and, of course, it is not linked to just one region.
We have also raised with the Government and have had successes in pursuing the disgusting issue of human organ farming. We think we are in a civilised world, but this is going on and it is not restricted to China. The products are being exported all over the place and people are going to China to access these organs. We need a much stronger approach.
While sanctions have an important role to play in responding to the most serious instances of human rights abuses, we must also utilise our influence at the UN to raise these violations. The Minister is the Minister for the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the vote at the Human Rights Council which rejected a resolution to hold a debate on China’s violations in Xinjiang. I am of course pleased that the United Kingdom supported that resolution; let us acknowledge it. The Minister will no doubt come back and say that we pushed it, supported it and encouraged others to vote for it, but what are we going to do next? That is what I want to hear from the Minister. Can he say what our mission will do to secure a further debate on it, particularly at the General Assembly?
We often focus on the limitations of the UN, but I know the Minister agrees that we should also see that it is an opportunity to enter into discussions with a wide range of countries, particularly those that have been influenced by China. We should be building those alliances in a much stronger and more coherent way.
We must be alert to human rights abuses caused by China elsewhere. Noble Lords have raised Hong Kong, the attack on international agreements and commitments made to the people of Hong Kong, and our response to that. I hope the Minister can tell us what assessment the Government have made of those further attacks on civil liberties since the flawed election of John Lee. I know the response will be, “I’m not going to discuss future designations for sanctions”, but I think we want to hear that we are going to take those abuses seriously, use the powers we now have with the human rights sanctions and look at how they can be addressed effectively. I hope the Minister can respond to all the contributions and give us an assurance that we will be more consistent in standing up for human rights across China.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for tabling this very important debate. We have heard deep, expert insights on human rights in China.
As the UK Human Rights Minister, I welcome this amplification and continued spotlight on this issue. On a personal note, it certainly strengthens my hand in discussions I have with colleagues across government. It is important that we continue to raise these issues because, to put it simply, it matters. We have had two debates on this issue today, and it is right that we continue to focus and hold the Government to account on what more they can do in this respect.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, drew important focus to the people-to-people links between China and the United Kingdom. That is perhaps unique to the United Kingdom and, arguably, the United States—two countries that quite often, when we talk about international affairs, have reflective domestic insights as well. The Chinese culture, communities and, most importantly, people, as British citizens here, are vital to the vibrancy, diversity and strength of the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge and thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for their kind remarks on the BNO policy and the United Kingdom Government. I add, particularly to the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, that their advocacy is equally important because it brings that focus and attention to these issues. I recall those debates and discussions. At times I cannot answer fully because we are restricted by some of the sensitive discussions, but they acted as a real catalyst for ensuring the joined-up thinking and close working with our colleagues. I also pay tribute to the then Home Secretary for ensuring that the procedures and processes were put in place to offer that warm welcome to people who wanted to come to the United Kingdom for the right reasons. That continues to be the case with BNOs.
I turn to the important issue of human rights violations. I listened carefully on some of the trade issues. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others that I will consult my colleagues in the Department for International Trade and write in that respect, as I will on a couple of questions on the property and the site that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised.
I will go through some of the measures that I know we have taken which we can amplify. I subscribe to what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about supply chains. It is right that the Government have made these statements, but we also need to go into the detail to ensure what the impact is. We know that sanctions can be circumvented. It is important that when we act, as we have in the case of Xinjiang, we do so in concert with our key partners to ensure that there is a consistent approach in this respect.
I turn to the situation in China. China’s ongoing human rights violations include in Xinjiang—and let us not forget Tibet, which has not come up specifically—as well as the erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, as we have heard.
I will take Xinjiang first. Frankly, the evidence of the scale and severity of human rights violations being perpetrated against the Uighur Muslims paints—I state this quite deliberately—a harrowing picture in every sense. As noble Lords will know—I have certainly discussed this with the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Alton—I held bilateral meetings with the then high commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, to ensure that her visit happened. We were long-standing advocates of that. Yes, it was a managed visit, but the report she produced was very telling in its detail. We welcomed the fact that the report happened. Noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, pointed out the issue of the vote that happened, which was just on the procedural motion. In the end the tallied figures, after there was a small discrepancy, showed that the difference was just one vote, 20 to 19. Nevertheless, that shows the strength of Chinese influence, ironically, on members of the Human Rights Council.
This is not part of my formal script but I will say it because it needs to be on the record: it is an extreme disappointment that we do not see the Islamic world—the Muslim countries themselves—standing up against the biggest internment of the Muslim community anywhere in the world. When issues of Islamophobia are raised with me, because we do have challenges of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the United Kingdom, that immediately throws a spotlight back on the discrimination and total internment of Uighurs on which there is, frankly, a deafening silence. I assure noble Lords that the issue is very close to my heart and I continue to raise it bilaterally with a number of countries.
The report itself sets out a range of evidence, including first-hand accounts from victims, of arbitrary and discriminatory detention, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, violations of reproductive rights and the destruction of religious sites. Perhaps most notably, the report also states that the extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detentions of members of Uighur and other predominantly Muslim groups
“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”
That is a very damning but factual assessment from what was a limited visit by the then human rights commissioner.
The report also corroborates the growing evidence we have of China’s human rights violations in the region. While the recent focus on Beijing’s violations has been about Xinjiang, there are of course a number of other long-standing human rights issues in China. In particular, I note the issues around the situation in Tibet—issues that noble Lords have mentioned about freedom of religion or belief, and the reports of Tibetan parents being coerced and intimidated into sending their children to state boarding schools.
I acknowledge fully the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Rogan, the right reverend Prelate and all who raised the issue of persecutions, not just of the Uighur Muslims but of Christians, Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others, simply on the grounds of their religion or belief. I was humbled yet honoured to host the freedom of religion or belief conference earlier this year, but a conference alone will not resolve the issues. Nor will this debate, but it is important that the focus remains.
Regrettably, we have also seen ongoing Chinese assaults on Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms. The national security law, which we have debated and had questions on in your Lordships’ House, continues to be systematically used to restrict rights and freedoms and silence dissenting voices. The authorities’ decision to target leading pro-democracy figures for prosecution in Hong Kong is unacceptable. Hong Kong’s way of life, prosperity and stability rely on respect for fundamental freedoms—rights and freedoms, let us be clear once again, that China itself undertook to uphold as a co-signatory of the Sino-British joint declaration. They are also protected in Hong Kong’s Basic Law. It is their law, something the Chinese Government and state signed up to, and it should be upheld. It was an internationally agreed statement lodged with the United Nations.
Noble Lords raised a number of points. First, on the issues around Cardinal Zen, Jimmy Lai and Andy Li, I assure the Committee that the United Kingdom has spoken repeatedly, and will continue to do so, about China’s arbitrary arrests and prosecutions in Hong Kong, including the names I have mentioned. Where trials are taking place, we also have consular attendance. I will of course keep noble Lords updated in this respect.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before the Minister leaves that really important point about the way the judiciary has been subverted in Hong Kong, will he respond to the remarks of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale, reported in today’s newspapers? Do the Government support her view that jurists should search their consciences before they participate in such proceedings?
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
Before the Minister replies, I remind Members that there should be only one intervention per speech in a QSD.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Perhaps I will cover that specifically in the note but, as I said, I certainly agree with the principle of the importance of jurists, and of asking whether they are able to fulfil their obligations in the way that they are designed to within the construct that has been set up. Ultimately, it is the jurists’ decision, but it is important. Very able jurists will ask themselves that question.
On the Prime Minister’s position, which was raised several times, at the recent G20 meeting in Bali he set out the view that China is both a systematic competitor and
“the biggest state-based threat to our economic security”.
There have been different perspectives, but we have a long-standing commitment to Taiwan. As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Trade Minister also visited Taiwan recently. The UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed. While we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have a strong unofficial relationship based on growing ties in a wide range of areas, including trade, and we share the common values of democracy, which Taiwan also propagates. We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo. I have often said in your Lordships’ House that it is for both sides of the Taiwan Strait to address these issues. I have noted a number of other points that were raised, such as statements made to committees by colleagues of mine in the Government. I have not seen the full details; it would be remiss of me not to respond, but I will do so once I have had time to review them.
I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about UK action. We continue to work within the context of the UN. I mentioned the Human Rights Council. At the UN Third Committee last month we also supported the latest joint statement on China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang. Following a concerted effort with our partners and the UK’s network of embassies and high commissions, a record 50 countries, representing six continents, supported that statement. We have taken opportunities to raise our wider concerns in international fora, including in relation to Tibet, and we remain active and resolute in calling China out on its actions to undermine Hong Kong’s way of life, as all noble Lords alluded to.
I am short of time. I have already committed to consulting with colleagues, particularly in the Department for International Trade, but I assure noble Lords that we have introduced new measures in the modern slavery Bill that require businesses and public sector bodies to report on specific areas in their modern slavery statements, including due diligence. We have improved the application of UK export controls.
To conclude, I assure noble Lords of our continued commitment to the primary importance of human rights for all communities within China and our continuing commitment to the relationships we have with key areas, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. December will mark the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That affirms the universal character of human rights as inherent, inalienable and applicable to all human beings. That will remain our moral compass.
Horseracing Industry
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Risby
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the horse racing industry in the United Kingdom.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to introduce this timely debate. First, I must declare that I have for some years been a government-appointed director of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the body that collects the levy from betting operators on their profits from horserace betting and distributes it to the sport and its wider grass roots. It has seen its reputation grow because it has been skilfully chaired and managed by a most effective executive team.
The levy board operates at arm’s length from government. This allows it to respond flexibly to the demands of horseracing while having direct bookmaker representation on the board. Maintaining this independence and responsiveness is crucial. The levy board contributes some £19 million to the sport’s regulation per year, about 80% of the total, and around £2 million a year to equine veterinary research and education. Additionally, the Great British Bonus is 66% funded by the levy board and serves to encourage, with considerable success, the breeding and ownership of British-bred fillies, and in addition to this there is a commitment to give £66 million next year to prize money.
As a Member of Parliament for 18 years, I represented the town of Newmarket, the world’s leading racing and breeding centre. Today’s debate provides an opportunity for us to discuss how we can take this great British success story forward, and how the racing industry and government can support each another in their policy priorities.
I unreservedly applaud the considerable support which the Government provided during the Covid-19 pandemic. The shutdown of racing for 11 weeks and the subsequent continuation of racing behind closed doors for a year put considerable financial strain on the industry, with more than £400 million in lost revenues. Racing and government worked closely on protocols for safe resumption, then the Government supported racing with a critical £21.5 million loan to the levy board through the sports winter survival package and, indeed, £28 million in cash flow and hardship funding. This helped to continue funding critical prize money, the very lifeblood of the racing industry, and other important initiatives, including training and education, integrity and horse welfare.
Horseracing is the second biggest sport in the UK by several measures, second only to football. More than 5 million people attend some 1,400 fixtures annually across our 59 racecourses. Four of the top 10 highest-attended sports events held annually in the UK are major horseracing festivals. It is the most broadcast sport on free-to-air television in the UK through the excellent coverage provided by ITV Racing. Racing provides a substantial contribution to the UK economy. It generates more than £4.1 billion of economic activity, raising more than £300 million in taxation annually for the Exchequer.
The industry provides some 80,000 jobs directly or indirectly and sits at the heart of many rural communities. The Racing Together programme highlights that more than 130 organisations utilise horseracing to support fundraising, well-being and training in local communities, with more than 1,500 hours donated by the racing industry to support charitable causes annually.
British racing also demonstrates international leadership on a range of issues, including integrity monitoring to intercept, disrupt and prosecute corrupt activity, working closely with international counterparts; significant efforts to advance diversity in the industry; and equine welfare initiatives further to raise standards across the lifetime of the racehorse through the independently chaired Horse Welfare Board’s A Life Well Lived strategy. The industry has also proudly supported over £40 million in veterinary research and education funding since 2000.
Yet, I firmly believe that this is an asset which the Government can do so much more to cultivate—a source of continuing frustration. I urge the Government to go further than they have in harnessing horseracing as an asset for their diplomatic and trading objectives. Furthermore, they should capitalise on thoroughbred horseracing and breeding’s role as a rural employer as part of their levelling-up agenda. I know that this is something that the British Horseracing Authority and all in British racing are keen to support them on.
However, if British racing is to really survive it needs to maintain its position at the international pinnacle. I am afraid it is clear that this is coming under remorselessly increasing pressure. Owing to a range of factors, British racing faces gaping challenges in achieving competitive levels of prize money. Quite simply, prize money acts as the lifeblood of the industry. It not only helps to sustain owners’ critical investment in the industry but supports many hundreds of training businesses and the livelihoods of thousands.
On the measure of prize money per race, British racing is well behind other major competitor jurisdictions, including Ireland, France, Australia, the United States, Hong Kong and Japan. These competitor jurisdictions continue to really drive up prize money increases, offering significant incentives for British owners to relocate abroad. Such financial pressures, compounded by additional complexities around thoroughbred movement following Brexit, are starting to have an active impact on owner and high net worth investor decisions to invest in British racing. The decisions of only a few significant owners to relocate to other jurisdictions would permanently damage Britain’s racing leadership position. Although there was record turnover at the key Tattersalls October sales this year, there is increasing evidence that a growing proportion of the top lots are leaving the UK. This exodus of equine talent, driven by international funding disparities, sees British racing starting to fall in this global race.
I am pleased to say that the industry is trying to respond to these challenges. I am delighted that British racing leaders agreed on a new governance structure this week for the sport to deliver unity and focused strategic direction. The racing industry needs the Government to step up as a partner to realise its potential, as has happened in other jurisdictions.
I highlight the forthcoming gambling review White Paper, although it has been repeatedly delayed, as critical. Indeed, it is vital that gambling regulation protects people from experiencing gambling-related harm, yet it is also key that it recognises the unique relationship between racing and betting. Any blanket, disproportionate measures could have profound consequences for British racing. I therefore hope we will see a balanced White Paper in the coming weeks.
I also reference that the Government are required by statute to review the rate of the horserace betting levy, which is currently set at 10% of betting operators’ gross profit on British racing, by no later than 2024. It encapsulates the symbiotic relationship between the two industries. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this given my position at the levy board, but I know that this is a point on which the racing industry has made repeated representations, including for a levy based fully or in part on a percentage of turnover rather than profits. However, it is hugely valued that bookmakers contribute some 45% of racing income.
Continuing efforts are being led to reduce complexities around thoroughbred movement post Brexit. I would be interested in hearing from my noble friend the progress of these discussions between the industry and our Government, and whether the future imports system can recognise our high standards of animal health. I therefore conclude by urging the Government, across their various departments, to engage proactively with similar vigour as demonstrated in the Covid-19 pandemic to grasp the many opportunities which exist and set up British racing to thrive through the 21st century.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, what great timing the noble Lord, Lord Risby, has achieved in securing this debate, because this is the week when, to a fanfare of trumpets, the British Horseracing Authority announced its final agreement to replace the present tripartite and dysfunctional system with a reform designed to stop individual racing interests blocking change. That is a step forward which we can all welcome.
The noble Lord is, of course, a true expert on racing, as a member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. He will not mind me reminding the Committee that that body exists today only because this House blocked a half-baked scheme cooked up by the Government and racing to hand the whole business of collecting taxes from punters over to a non-accountable body. After this debate, again by a lucky chance, I am off to the 50th birthday party of Alan Delmonte, the chief executive of the levy board—I suspect others here are going too. What a great job he, the noble Lord and their team have done.
I have a few interests to declare. I am member of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission, which oversees the SP, and a past director of the Tote and of the shadow Racing Trust. Much more interestingly, I own or part-own three horses: Lost Connections, who came fourth at Lingfield on Tuesday; Financial Outcome, who won his last two point-to-points; and a baby novice trotter who has not yet run. More significantly, I am also chair of Premier Greyhound Racing, a JV company formed by Arena Racing Company and Entain to supply coverage of the dogs to betting shops and homes. Of course, this afternoon I speak for myself and no one else.
As I say, this is the week of BHA reform and it would be churlish to cavil too much at this welcome change. However, I am afraid I am going to add an ounce of cavil to a pound of welcome. It is quite astonishing how long it has taken for this basic change to happen. I was on the Tote board with Peter Savill when he first started lobbying for change—not exactly this, but change that would have similar effect—20 years ago. Wearing my greyhound hat, I cannot help but compare this pace of change in governance with that in greyhound racing.
We had a big problem in greyhound racing. I was chair of the then British Greyhound Racing Board and the governance was in at least as much of a mess as that of horseracing. The Donoughue committee was appointed. It is sad that Bernard, my noble friend Lord Donoughue, is not here this afternoon to give us the benefit of his advice. He came up with a wonderful report proposing root-and-branch change, which went through in a couple of years. I can say with complete confidence that if he had not produced that report and if we had not had that change, I do not think we would have greyhound racing today, or certainly not on the same scale, with 20 tracks this side of the Irish Sea, three meetings every day for afficionados and punters—the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will forgive me for mentioning punters, about whom his views are well known—and still a position as Britain’s sixth-biggest spectator sport. That shows what you can do with the aid of good governance.
We do not need and do not have a compulsory levy. We have a voluntary levy. A few years ago, I was responsible for brokering an increase in that levy by which bookmakers voluntarily put their money into greyhound racing and in return got a say on how it is spent through the British Greyhound Racing Fund.
One of the things that the new BHA model will want to do is negotiate an increase in the levy. I will say two things about that. First, it would be very unwise to progress this—here I pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Risby—until we know the Government’s plans for gambling reform. If they introduce some of the changes that have been advocated—I do not say by the noble Lord, Lord Foster—then bookmakers will take a heavy hit, as will the Exchequer, incidentally. In the light of today’s events, that is something that we would not want to see. The less money that is collected from bookmakers, the less money there will be to go into racing too.
Secondly, I am a sort of economist, and I have my doubts about whether large amounts of the levy going into prize money solves this industry’s undoubted problems. Incidentally, I accept the point about overseas competition for buying racehorses, but it is perfectly clear to me, as an economist, that if you raise prize money people will pay more for horses when they go through the sales ring—and what would you have achieved? You would have lined the pockets of breeders. These unexpected side-effects of half-understood economics have to be borne in mind when we consider the right level for the levy.
That leads me to a proposal. Racing indeed needs a plan, but I am not wholly confident that, even with the new model of governance, it has all the knowledge and understanding that it needs for a robust plan. Of course it will consult, but there is a case for a wider input than consultation alone will bring. Therefore, in my view, racing would benefit from formalised outside help and advice. My proposal is a royal commission—the first one for more than 20 years—on horseracing, including representatives of racing but also outsiders with relevant expertise: an independent economist, a leisure industry expert and someone who understands the betting industry properly, all under a proper heavyweight neutral chair.
I am not soft-minded about royal commissions. The one I was on, on care of the elderly, was a complete shambles, and I signed a minority report to it—so the 20-year gap was probably welcome. But they have something to offer in this kind of circumstance. Give such a body a couple of years and there is every chance that it will come up with a plan worthy of that name to act as a starting point for radical reform of racing that the BHA, the Government and the oft-forgotten punter can get behind.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing this debate. I have only had the odd flutter on the Grand National and occasional visits to the wonderful racecourse in my former constituency of Bath, so I am conscious that some noble Lords are far better qualified to speak on this issue than me. Nevertheless, I have raised a couple of concerns in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions relating to the sector and the industry on the issue of drones and gambling, and on wider gambling reform. I will concentrate on just those two, and I apologise for not picking up other issues raised by noble Lords.
One of the ongoing challenges for the racing industry is the use of drones to film races without the permission of the course. This is being undertaken by some in the betting community to beat the slight time lag from official TV feeds. This is very worrying for the integrity of betting markets. I believe that this desperately needs to be addressed, so I would very much welcome comments from the Minister on what the Government propose to do about it. In particular, I hope he would be willing to consider looking at broader sports rights to protect sporting events from the use of drones and to enable the organisers of sports, including horseracing of course, to have much greater control over the events that they are responsible for.
More generally on wider gambling reforms, some in the horseracing sector have argued that the proposals for reform advocated by me and other members of Peers for Gambling Reform will do great harm to the industry. Indeed, articles in the specialist media accuse me of being ignorant, economically daft and, on one occasion, even delusional. So, since I very much hope that the Government will adopt the proposals that we recommend, which stem from the proposals of your Lordships’ Select Committee on gambling, I hope I can reassure the Minister and the Committee that they will not have the impact that some believe they will.
We have to remember that well over one-third of a million people are deemed to be gambling addicts, including as many as 60,000 11 to 16 year-old children, impacting the lives of well over 2 million people in this country. Most tragically, we have hundreds of gambling-related suicides every single year, so reform of gambling is urgently needed. Since horseracing and gambling are inextricably intertwined, such reforms will clearly have an impact but, I argue, not to the degree that some have suggested. Despite what media reports have claimed, I am not a gambling prohibitionist and I do not want to ban the entire sport. Indeed, the opposite is the case: I hope it will flourish.
I cannot help but note in passing that while the amount of support for the horseracing industry that comes through the statutory horseracing betting levy has gone down, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, has pointed out, it is still something like three times the amount of money that comes in from the voluntary levy to help research, education and treatment for gambling addiction. That is why I would like to see a statutory levy that brings in more money.
I turn briefly to the other recommendations and their relationship with the industry and, first, our recommendations to limit the links between sport and gambling advertising. I make it absolutely clear, as the Select Committee does, that we believe those proposals should exclude horseracing and greyhound racing. That is not an issue.
Secondly, we are calling for the introduction of affordability checks. Surely it is important that consumers can afford to bet in the way they do, yet some in the industry have argued that such checks will deter the vast majority of punters and even cause a huge surge in the use of black market gambling, with dire consequences for the horseracing industry. Of course, this ignores that fact that some checks involving the sharing of financial data are already required in relation to money laundering and the existing and recent requirements of the Gambling Commission.
The impact of our proposals on horseracing will be limited because, first, they are targeted at online gambling. No checks would take place at a racecourse under the proposals, so traditional gambling at the racetrack would not be affected. Secondly, for online gambling, where horseracing now also resides, we want them to be triggered at a level of £100 a month. Even one of the gambling industry’s own reports, authored for it by PwC, determined that high-spend gamblers are defined as anyone losing more than £75 a month. So a level of £100 as the trigger really will not affect any but the smallest proportion of online customers, those who are likely to be suffering or at risk of suffering a gambling disorder. Thirdly, it is perfectly possible to do the checks in an unintrusive manner. After all, the gambling industry already shares data with credit agencies so should not need to ask for additional evidence from customers in all but a few cases. Affordability checks should not be a threat to the industry.
There is one area where I acknowledge potential issues that need to be addressed. Traditional, on-course betting is very different from what takes place online. At a racetrack there is a long time gap between races and punters have time to reflect on their financial position before making the next bet. Online there are very few of the limits, whether on stakes and prizes or on speed of play, that apply to land-based gambling. I acknowledge that there may well be impacts there, but I think they could be limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, agreed that the horseracing industry wants to protect people from gambling-related harm but without disproportionate measures. I genuinely believe that the proposals we are recommending achieve both the things he wants.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Risby on securing this debate. I bow in admiration to his knowledge of the industry and join him in recognising the contribution that horseracing plays throughout the UK today. My racing interest is largely as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Racing and Bloodstock Industries Group. Also, as an MP for 18 years I was fortunate to have Thirsk racecourse in my constituency and York, Wetherby and Ripon nearby.
Horseracing makes a huge contribution to the local economy of rural North Yorkshire. There are many stables and trainers across North Yorkshire and a day at the races brings huge pleasure to many and fills the bars, cafes and restaurants of the county. Point-to-points bring enjoyment and help prepare horses and riders for the jump races. That is something we must not lose sight of. Whether there will be enough jockeys stepping forward is a worry.
I shall highlight the importance of one racecourse—York—locally. Last year was a particularly busy year as the first full year back after the pandemic. Attendance levels of 275,000 over an 18-day season were within 5% of the pre-Covid 2019 figures, in spite of the fact that national train strikes were called on three of the race days, which was not very helpful. There was a record number of horses racing at York—1,491—averaging 12 per race, which is the highest of any flat racecourse. According to a 2019 study by Sheffield Hallam University, the economic impact on the York economy is £60 million per annum through race day and non-race day activity.
The wider racing industry in Yorkshire, with nine racecourses, more than 100 training yards, the National Horseracing College at Doncaster and Doncaster bloodstock sales, contributes £200 million per annum to the county’s economy. Some £10 million was invested in prize money to attract the best horses and jockeys to York and to support the wider industry at a challenging time as it emerged from the pandemic.
A particular highlight for me was the June 2005 week-long Royal Ascot meet at York, which was sadly a one-off occasion. It opened up the splendours of the royal race meeting to many people who had never been able to experience it.
The welfare of horses and jockeys lies at the heart of racing’s future. Much work on improving animal welfare has taken place in recent years. I pay personal tribute to the work of the late Rose Paterson. As chairman of Aintree racecourse, Rose made great strides at making the famous jumps safer, albeit still challenging. I realise that that work continues.
I also pay tribute to the excellent work of Jack Berry House in Malton in supporting the recovery of injured jockeys. This facility is a tremendous asset to injured jockeys across Yorkshire and the north of England. Separately, the charity Racing Welfare has to date in 2022 provided more than 2,000 instances of support to 472 individuals working in or retired from the racing industry in Yorkshire alone, as well as providing more than £24,000 in grants. The charity organises very successful and popular open days in Middleham and Malton each year, enabling members of the public to go behind the scenes at some of the most prestigious training yards in the country.
However, as my noble friend and others have pointed out, challenges lie ahead. There is concern about falling average attendances, albeit that they are recovering from Covid, the impact of lower prize money levels on our ability to compete with other countries and the financial loss to the racing industry of the Covid-19 pandemic, with lost revenues to racecourses, trainers, breeders and jockeys of more than £100 million. There is concern about the future impact of reduced prize money and a general contraction of the industry and, as my noble friend pointed out, in the sale of horses at Tattersalls and elsewhere.
On the impact of the gambling reforms that were promised in December 2020, the proposals have yet to be published. I urge the Minister to recognise the significance of horseracing in all its aspects, particularly to the rural economy, in this White Paper and to work to enhance its impact on the rural economy, particularly through the levelling-up agenda.
I am concerned, and have been since Brexit was first raised, about its consequences for the movement and export of horses. That is something I will remain vigilant about.
I make a plea to the Minister that the gambling White Paper will be proportionate, evidence-led and responsible. British racing prize money is falling behind France, Ireland and other leading jurisdictions, as my noble friend Lord Risby pointed out. We are losing equine talent with horses being sold overseas, which is threatening our position as a leading global racing nation. Will the Minister ensure that bets made by British-based punters on overseas racing are covered in the Government’s review of the levy? That would recover the current losses of £20 million to £30 million a year.
Finally, will the Government recognise the contribution of horseracing to the local rural economy and as a significant soft power asset on a global scale? This is not just the sport of kings but the sport of every individual racegoer and should be recognised as such by the Government.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a veterinary surgeon as laid out in the register. I am very grateful, as others are, to the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for securing this debate. He and others have emphasised the considerable value of the equine industry to the UK economy. As noble Lords may expect from my interests, the points I wish to make are in respect of measures of support for equine health, disease prevention and veterinary education.
I hope it is self-evident that the whole horseracing industry is critically underpinned by maintaining the health of horses, which are imperilled by infectious disease and traumatic injury. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has historically provided, as determined by statute, substantial financial support for equine health and welfare in three main ways. The first is its important financial support for research into the epidemiology of infectious disease and into non-infectious trauma injuries, which has led, for example, to improvements in the preparation of racing surfaces and the design of fences to reduce injury from falls and lameness.
The second is the levy board’s support of disease surveillance, which is hugely important to help monitor and prevent the incursion of devastating infections, such as equine flu, which could paralyse not only the horseracing industry but the wider horse sport industry as a whole. The important issue of equine disease surveillance was formerly located at the Animal Health Trust, but, following its unfortunate closure, surveillance activities have fortunately managed to continue with help from the levy board. They have relocated to the University of Cambridge and a major veterinary practice in Newmarket. The third main support that the levy board has given is to veterinary education and for specialist postgraduate training in equine health and welfare to ensure that we have an unrivalled cohort of appropriate professional expertise.
Moreover, I should emphasise that assurance about the welfare of horses, including, of course, freedom from disease and injury, underpins the social contract between the industry and the British public, who accept and support the racing of horses. I need hardly stress that this cannot be taken for granted in a public who increasingly question and value animal welfare.
Therefore, funding for the issues I have mentioned is absolutely vital and the role of the HBLB is critical. Although a small proportion of its overall income is devoted to horse health and welfare, that is hugely important and has amounted to more than £40 million over the past 22 years. It currently amounts to about £1.5 million to £2 million per annum. I stress that this support is particularly important because alternative sources for funding equine health, welfare and research are relatively limited. The research councils and the Wellcome Trust, which are very important supporters of biomedical research in general, do not include funding for equine research. There are a few other charities and organisations which help—I should mention the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, the Racing Foundation and the Horse Welfare Board, among others—but the support flowing from the levy board is quantitively the most important in this respect.
It is thus of some concern that there has been continuing uncertainty about the future of the HBLB. Whether or why it might be replaced is not something for me to comment on, but I want to emphasise that any current or alternative mechanism helping to support the racing industry in general must surely take account of the fact that the whole industry, directly or indirectly, is totally reliant on maintaining the health and welfare of the horses on which it depends. Finally, will His Majesty’s Government ensure that any future changes to the statutory mechanisms which provide funding for the racing industry include adequate support for equine health and welfare?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for bringing this debate forward and I thank all noble Lords for their interesting contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who clearly has an enormous amount of knowledge about the industry—far more than I have. As has been said, this is a timely debate for a number of reasons, one of which is that the British racing industry has recently announced that it will undertake a new industry strategy aimed at building a sustainable model for racing and identifying areas for growth. We have discussed many areas today where this could be implemented. It has also agreed a new governance structure that better clarifies the role of the British Horseracing Authority as the governing body.
I should declare a former interest in this matter, as I was a member of the whip consultation steering group that recently brought forward recommendations on improving the use of the whip. From this, I have a particular interest in welfare, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who rightly said that the industry needs to be underpinned by equine health and welfare. Being on that steering group drew my attention to the work that the Horse Welfare Board is carrying out to enhance equine welfare right across racing and to the importance of taking a global leadership role in this area. Its strategy, A Life Well Lived, which has been mentioned, was where the recommendation to review the use of the whip came from.
However, it also mentioned a number of other areas in which to improve animal welfare, for example, the use of equine fracture support kits for the treatment of injury and the roll-out of white-painted obstacles, moving them away from the traditional orange colour because there has been lots of interesting research about equine vision and how horses see things. It is a very interesting report. It also encouraged the formation of a working party to present recommendations on the jump-racing predictive risk model. There is lots of interesting work going on around welfare, which I strongly support.
However, we also need to make further progress on welfare issues. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about this. When I was on the steering committee, for example, I was one of a minority who believed that the whip should not be used for encouragement but kept only for safety.
I come back to some of the issues discussed in the debate. There was quite a lot about the review of the Gambling Act, and Ministers obviously recognise that it needs updating. As discussed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, we have a lot of online gambling. I know that the British Horseracing Authority also believes that this review needs to take place, and that the Act needs updating. If we do not update it, there are concerns that we threaten the integrity of sport. Importantly, we need to protect people from gambling-related harm. My understanding is that the review does not specifically target horseracing but, as we have heard, given the amount of money that it receives through the horserace betting levy, clearly it will be impacted. When we include media rights and sponsorship, we are talking about huge sums of money, so it is bound to have an impact on the wider equestrian world.
The new chairman of the British Horseracing Authority has said that the review needs to reflect the unique relationship between racing and betting. He was concerned that pre-emptive measures were already starting to impact on the sport, citing the delay of the White Paper, which has also been discussed in this debate. I would be very interested to hear whether the Minister can shed any light on when we are likely to see it. The Secretary of State, Michelle Donelan, has said that the White Paper is a priority but we do not yet have a publication date, so it would be helpful if the Minister could give a steer on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made an important contribution about the importance of reforming gambling, but also said that when any review takes place, we must always be aware of the harm that it can do. We heard quite a lot about the horserace betting levy. We on the Opposition Benches previously supported reforming the levy, when we secured an amendment to gambling legislation. My noble friend Lord Lipsey and others made some suggestions on this.
The British Horseracing Authority specifically asked whether the Government would consider—I would be interested in the Minister’s response—a few things, one of which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned: extending the levy to apply to all horseracing globally that is bet on by British customers. That is based on historic, international precedence, so we should be able to do it. Another is adjusting the levy rate so that it would be based on a percentage of turnover rather than profit, resulting in less volatile yields and reflecting overall activity levels.
If we are to move forward in the areas debated today, the Government really need to work with the industry to find solutions to support a high-health, high-wealth future for the industry, particularly on the movement of racehorses. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about the post-Brexit complications of this. Now that we have left the EU, there is quite an adjustment for the thoroughbred industry, which faces significant challenges in how this is managed. A rare benefit of Brexit is that it means we can go further and faster in raising animal health and welfare standards, through risk-based controls for equine movement. Again, I would be really interested to hear from the Minister about how he sees tackling the challenges while welcoming the positives that come from this. I see that I am about to run out of time, so I end there and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Risby for initiating this debate, and all noble Lords who have taken part in it. His support for the racing industry goes back a long way, including of course to another place, where he ably represented the people and businesses of West Suffolk, including Newmarket Racecourse and the many horseracing interests in that constituency. As he mentioned, he has been a member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board since 2016, and I am glad to have the opportunity shortly to say a bit more about his and their excellent work on behalf of racing. I also echo my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s tribute to the work of the late Rose Paterson, who is much missed in Parliament and the horseracing sector.
The Government acknowledge the significant contribution that racing makes to our economy: it supports jobs and livelihoods from Perth to Newton Abbot, and it is particularly important to rural economies, in the way that my noble friends set out. Over 20,000 people are directly employed across 59 licensed racecourses, hundreds of training yards and thousands of breeding operations. Tens of thousands more jobs are supported in the rural economy supply chain, including in the farriery and veterinary sectors, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, as well as many jobs in the betting industry. Indeed, horseracing is the second-biggest sport in the United Kingdom in terms of attendance, employment and annual revenue. According to its governing body, the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth over £4 billion to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure every year.
How much it is valued by the public is shown by the numbers returning to our flagship meetings as Covid restrictions were lifted, with a record aggregate attendance at the Cheltenham Festival this year. I was on a very busy train to Gloucester on Friday, on my way to visit some of the new recipients of Arts Council funding, so I can attest to the liveliness of the November meeting there as well.
The Government introduced the horserace betting levy in the 1960s, when there were fears that no one would go to racecourses once betting shops were permitted to open. We have continued to ensure that the levy keeps pace as the betting industry evolves with the times. In 2017, we extended the levy to online bookmakers and fixed the rate at 10% of bookmakers’ gross profits on British racing so that it no longer has to be negotiated each year.
The 2017 reforms almost doubled the amount of levy collected, to £95 million in 2018, exceeding expectations, and it has continued to perform well. The levy returned £97 million to racing in 2019-20, against a forecast of £90 million. Even in 2020-21, when racing was suspended for two months and betting shops were closed for much longer, it returned £82 million. Last financial year, it returned £97 million. But we are not complacent. The British Horseracing Authority has presented its case that there is a significant gap in its funding, which means that it is unable to compete with jurisdictions such as the Republic of Ireland and France, as my noble friend outlined. We have considered that case very carefully as we prepare to conduct the next review of the levy, which is due in 2024. In particular, racing has asked for international races to be brought within the scope of the levy—noble Lords highlighted this in their remarks. Although funding systems vary between jurisdictions, it is fair to say that racing in those countries benefits from bets on overseas races in a way that racing in Britain does not, which is something that merits careful consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about and highlighted the importance of funding equine health. The money that is raised is applied to the advancement of veterinary science and education, as set out in the legislation. Indeed, it is one of the three key areas funded.
A number of noble Lords touched on the Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005. In addition to its case for additional funding, which I mentioned earlier, racing representatives have discussed with officials at DCMS their concerns about the impacts of proposals being explored through our review, including the potential for so-called affordability checks, the opposite case to which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. We have heard his representations and their concerns, and I assure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we have been gathering evidence to make sure that the review is evidence-based, and we will continue to engage with the sector when the White Paper is published in the coming weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, raised the use of drones to beat the broadcasting lag. We are aware of the industry’s concerns about this use of drones and will keep the issue under close scrutiny, working with it.
Any consideration of amendments to the rate of the levy needs to be in the context of all the proposals in the White Paper which affect bookmakers. However, the levy is not the only source of funding for racing. Indeed, it represented just 6% of racing’s total income in 2022, compared with 17% from racegoers, 11% from media rights deals and 4% from sponsorship. Owners and breeders contributed 40% and 22% respectively. So while we review whether the levy provides an adequate level of funding for the industry, it is only right that we expect racing and betting to explore jointly how they can maximise other sources of income. Both sectors have a clear interest in making racing as attractive as possible to customers, and I encourage racing to engage and work closely with betting partners in its thinking on the levy.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Risby and his fellow members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board for their stewardship of levy funds. As the levy is a percentage of profits, it varies from year to year, depending, for example, on how bookmakers fare at key race meetings. The levy board has reserves to help mitigate this variation and it used these to great effect to support the industry during the Covid-19 pandemic, to mitigate the absence of, first, racing and, subsequently, spectators.
The levy board and the Racing Foundation put together a £28 million cash-flow and hardship support package. Some £20 million of levy funds were aimed at supporting racecourses, with £8 million from the foundation going to supporting individuals in the sector. Since then, the levy board has made additional contributions to prize money to mitigate lower amounts made available by racecourses because of Covid.
The Government too provided support, with racing benefiting from our economy-wide support for jobs and rates relief. Racecourses have also been able to access support through the sport survival package, through which a £21.5 million loan has been made to the levy board to enable it to provide extra support. The levy board distributed £15 million of this via prize money in 2021 and £6.5 million in 2022.
The Government remain committed to supporting British horseracing and related businesses, which are vital to the lifeblood of the rural economy, as well as a source of great pleasure to many people. I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate and giving us this opportunity, and for the work he does on behalf of all those who have the interests of racing at heart. I look forward to debating these issues further in future.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Leong
Introduction: Baroness O’Neill of Bexley
Oaths and Affirmations
Carer’s Allowance
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Carers UK Heading for Crisis, published on 18 October, which showed that 40 per cent of carers receiving Carers Allowance are in debt and unable to make ends meet; and what steps they intend to take in response.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as vice-president of Carers UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is looking forward to an early meeting with Carers UK to discuss this and its recent report. Our main conclusion from that helpful report is that carers in financial need may wish to check whether they have applied for all the benefits that they are entitled to, including means-tested benefits. That can provide them with an extra weekly income and additional help with the cost of living. For example, carers can get up to £2,000 on the carer’s element of universal credit.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and for her personal commitment to this issue. I know she understands the economic case for supporting carers because they save the nation nearly £200 billion every year, but I wonder if the Government also understand that there is a strong political case here too. Some 84% of the general public think the Government should supply more support for carers, while only yesterday the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services said that 97% of directors thought the Government should provide more financial and practical support for carers. A top-up payment to get them through the winter and a relaxation of the earnings rule, so that they could keep more money if they managed to get a job, are modest enough demands but they would make a huge difference to carers, to health and to social care, and perhaps even give a much-needed boost to the Government’s reputation.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I accept that the requests in the paper are modest—I really do. I must pay tribute to the work that carers do; it is much valued and respected. With regard to a top-up or an extra payment, unpaid carers can already get a top-up through means-tested benefits. I re-emphasise that we must make sure that they claim everything they should. The earnings limit for those in receipt of carer’s allowance who are able to maintain some contact with the employment market is currently £132 a week. I have no information that tells me that that is going to be changed.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, given that many people in ordinary households are very worried about their fuel bills this coming winter, it seems highly likely that carers, often with very delicate people to support, will be even more worried. Can my noble friend offer them any crumb of comfort?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
There are two things. We understand the pressures on carers facing the cost of living crisis, especially around energy costs. They will get support through the energy price guarantee, which is supporting millions of households with rising energy costs. I am just waiting for someone to ask me about uprating. We have nine minutes to go until the Chancellor’s Statement, and I stand here in hope.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, carers who care for longer are more likely to be struggling to meet the cost of living crisis at the moment and are more likely to be falling into debt. The Carers UK report shows that that is particularly the case for those who have cared for over five years. What plans do the Government have to set up some sort of independent inquiry looking into the relationship between carers and poverty and to try to come up with some solutions for bringing unpaid carers out of poverty?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My very straightforward answer is that there are no plans for a review or working group on this. Knowing how vociferous the noble Baroness is about things that matter to her, I would have thought that a letter to the Secretary of State would not be a bad thing.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, this Minister and other Ministers constantly tell us that carers are well valued, yet the carer’s allowance continues to be paid at a lower rate than equivalent benefits, despite the growing evidence of the serious hardships experienced by carers. How can this state of affairs be justified? Asking carers to claim means-tested benefits is not the answer.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We should wait and see what the Chancellor says, and I am hopeful about that. I re-emphasise that means-tested benefits can increase payments to carers quite significantly. I am sure that, when Carers UK meet the Minister for Disabled People and talk about the report, they will discuss in detail some plan to raise awareness of those benefits.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in response to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, my noble friend the Minister replied that carers are not always aware of all the benefits they are entitled to. Could my noble friend enlighten the House on what steps the Government are taking to make sure that more carers are aware of the benefits available to them?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I go back to my previous answer. We have done it for pension credit, and we have had quite some impact there. I cannot commit to doing the same for carer’s allowance, but I am sure that, when Carers UK meet the Minister for Disabled People, that should be if not number one then number two on the agenda. There are other ways people can know about those means-tested benefits, including GOV.UK and through citizens advice bureaux and other organisations such as Carers UK.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister prepared to talk to the Department of Health and Social Care to see whether there could be an additional allowance to carers immediately on a relative being discharged from hospital to try to reduce delayed transfers of care?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I ask my noble friend Lord Markham, “Shall we talk?”. I am very happy to talk to anybody to make life better for people. Maybe my noble friend can follow that through in the next Question.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is rightly encouraging people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, but can I take her back to the question asked by her noble friend Lady Fookes? Even people on benefits may be struggling at this point. The report showed that those who are caring have extra costs which others do not. The report was incredibly moving. One person said:
“My son is incontinent … if we don’t wash him in warm water several times a day this will cause him to physically decline. So how do we pay for the gas to heat the water if we are currently at max budget?”
Another said,
“my husband has terminal brain cancer, I am worried about how I will cope over the winter months as I can’t allow him to be cold—I need him to be as comfortable as possible in his final months at home”.
Those who are on just carer’s allowance do not get any extra help with fuel. What are the Government going to do to see whether the money given to those who are caring is enough to meet the costs they encounter?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Those who are on carer’s allowance receive the £400. Those who are on carer’s allowance but who are entitled to the carer’s element of UC, where they are not required to look for work, can get another £2,000. The Government are helping, and we are four minutes away from finding out what more they might do around energy costs. The stories and case studies that the noble Baroness read out are harrowing, but the Government are doing everything they can, within the limits of their financial position.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government given any thought to those people on carer’s allowance getting automatic increases rather than having to means test? We already know that means testing makes it more difficult for claimants to receive the money they need.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I think the noble Lord is asking me whether people on carer’s allowance will automatically get means-tested benefits. There are other benefits which are means tested and cannot automatically be applied. I have no information that those rules are to change. I agree that the noble Lord is justified in his question.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think that it is high time we had a review of the whole basis of social care? I do not know what the Chancellor is going to announce, but did we not take a wrong turn when we placed the emphasis on people not having to sell their family homes, rather than on getting the resources needed to support professional carers, as well as carers at home, and on reinforcing support where families take on that responsibility but are covered by additional help? It really is urgent, and it is one of the reasons we see ambulances parked outside hospitals and hospital beds being blocked.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend that the situation is urgent. We have launched the People at the Heart of Care White Paper, which set out a 10-year vision for reforming adult social care. I do not make light of the facts; we are all aware of the extraordinary position the NHS is in with the backlogs. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Markham—I am not passing the buck—has got this under control and will be prepared to share that with noble Lords.
Childhood Obesity
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
Addressing childhood obesity remains a priority for the Government and we remain committed to achieving our ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030. We are delivering an ambitious programme of work to create a healthier environment to help people achieve and maintain a healthy weight. We recognise that there is more that we need to do, and we will continue to work with the food industry to make it easier for people to make healthier choices.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, first, could the Minister clarify whether the previous Administration’s policy, either to weaken or to repeal much of the 2020 obesity strategy, still stands or whether the Government will do better than that? Secondly, does he agree that health visitors play an important part in educating and informing families and parents so that, when children are young, they are brought up in an environment where they are encouraged to have a diet that tackles obesity?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree that health visitors play a vital role. We all know that a good start to life with healthy eating is a good foundation for the rest of your life. We also know that a lot of the problems around adult obesity obviously start in children under the age of five. I completely agree on continuing to strive to do better in government. I will answer some more questions on the actions we are taking, from which the noble Lord will see that we are very active.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as 40 million people are obese in this country, marching inevitably to a premature death from a variety of very unpleasant diseases, it would be a good idea to encourage them to have one less meal a day? This might encourage children to follow suit and put fewer calories into their mouths, which would help prevent them developing type 2 diabetes before they are 10.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I agree that we—both as the Government and in general—need to be clear about what our recommended calorific intake is each day. Whether you choose to change that by eating one less meal, or however else you distribute your eating across the day, it is our role to help educate people on healthy eating. I agree that it is an issue and a big cost to both the health service and the economy. Our latest estimates are that it could cost the economy as much as £58 billion a year, so it is a critical message to get across.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister enlighten us on the position of the BOGOF—buy one, get one free—deals? Are we going to remove the disincentive to people buying extra calories in the form of an extra portion? Or will the Government encourage people not to buy the first portion?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I think the noble Lord is aware, the position on BOGOF, so to speak, is that we have delayed those restrictions for a year. We have taken significant action in this space, most critically in supermarkets, by moving the promoted items away from tills and prominent aisle endings to remove this so-called pester power. We will very much keep this under review; when we see the impact, particularly of moving those items, we can look again at whether we will introduce more BOGOF restrictions.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned that what children eat is very important, but is the amount of proper and physical exercise young children get not just as important? Is he concerned, as I am, that primary schools, more and more, do not have officially registered physical education teachers, resulting in children getting very little properly organised exercise? Does he think that this is important, as far as obesity in children is concerned?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness, particularly given her previous position, that sport and physical activity are vital. As I am sure she is aware, we have a 60-minute target for children and £320 million of PE funding to back that up—but active lifestyles and sport are critical to that.
At this moment, as both an Englishman and a Welshman, I take the opportunity to wish both teams all the best in the World Cup.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a factor that exercise, no matter how much you do, will reduce only 20% of your overweight? Some 80% is from food and drink. Will the Government spend more time looking at fat and sugar? Why will they not promote research into alternatives to sugar, notably stevia? Instead, they leave it to the private sector and the manufacturers to do the work, and they are doing no work whatever on it. In those circumstances, will the Government take action themselves?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that a healthy lifestyle in terms of exercise gets only you so far and that the amount we eat is critical to that. We have played a very active role on sugar reduction—of course, I say this in the context of this being Sugar Awareness Week. Obviously, the sugary drinks levy has reduced sugar in soft drinks by 44% by using artificial sweeteners, so this is something we will look to continue to research and to add to, if the evidence backs it up.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered relationship with ukactive. I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that there is, on this occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, said once, a silver bullet: it is called physical activity. This is in line with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. In supporting physical activity, my experience was that the Department of Health needed to work with DCMS and the Department for Education to promote school sport partnerships. In my former constituency, 51 primary schools benefit from the school sport partnerships. It is a really important priority that every youngster, not just those who are really good at sport, gets the chance for that physical activity.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend and totally agree with him. As we have all mentioned, physical activities are a key part of a healthy lifestyle, regarding not just obesity and healthy eating but mental health. There is a lot of evidence to show that sport and a healthy lifestyle are good for everyone. We are working with the DfE and DCMS on this, but I agree that it we will need to keep it central to our agenda.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I say to the Minister that we do not need to reinvent the wheel. A perfectly good practical policy was worked out at the end of the David Cameron period in government; it arrived on the desk of Theresa May, who scrapped it. Why not go back to that?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am afraid the noble Lord is testing my memory as to what that was. If he will excuse me, I will find out what it was and write to him.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, obviously the situation in the UK is extremely concerning, but we should consider what is going on elsewhere in the OECD: some countries have a better record than us, and others have brought in extremely innovative initiatives. What can we learn from other countries?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Absolutely, we always need to ensure that we are trying to learn from best examples, either in this country or from around the world. The OECD talks about four major strands: information and education; increasing healthy choices; modifying costs, such as a sugar tax; and restrictions on the placement of food and promotions. Noble Lords can see that we are taking much action in all those areas. Most of all, I am pleased to see that, influenced by a trailblazing initiative started in Amsterdam, we are now funding five local authorities to follow that across Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Lewisham to see what we can learn from those initiatives.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, what parents, health professionals, educators and retailers want is some consistency and clarity from the Government. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to maintain the previous Prime Minister’s plans to ditch the vast majority of their 2020 obesity strategy, against the advice of the current Chancellor, who just two months ago signed a letter from former Health Ministers on the need for an anti-obesity strategy? We need to know where we are.
Lord Markham (Con)
I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I am not quite sure which former Prime Minister and Chancellor she is referring to. I could not resist that, but I take her point and will respond in writing.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that we have had strategy after strategy, all well intentioned—we all agree on what we want to do—but it is not working? The Government pussyfoot around this. As my noble friend Lord McColl said, we need to tell people that it is not acceptable to be obese. If you are obese, guess what, your children think that it is acceptable to be obese. Might not we have a bit more of a robust strategy on this?
Lord Markham (Con)
I like to think that we have an active strategy in this space. Personally, I prefer carrot to stick in this area. However, as I answered in the previous question, I am prepared to learn from anything that has worked in this country or abroad. If there is evidence of where the stick works better than the carrot, I would be willing to look at that and see whether we should be copying some of it.
Peerages: Letters Patent
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what precedent exists for peerages to be recommended by the Prime Minister but with a request for the Monarch not to issue Letters Patent until an unspecified date in the future.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I beg leave to ask the Question that has stood in my name for four weeks on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
The Government are aware that there is some precedent for individuals deferring taking up their seats in the House of Lords—for example, by agreeing a delay in the issue of Letters Patent. However, that is limited and largely reflective of personal circumstances. As the noble Lord will know, advice between the Prime Minister and the sovereign is confidential.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, perversely, the topical Question granted for yesterday helps us to clarify the Government’s position, not least on the difference between an MSP and a Member of the House of Commons, and the constitutional position and implications, not least for the monarch. Let me ask a very simple question: will the Government support tomorrow the Private Member’s Bill, which will be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to strengthen the House of Lords Appointments Commission?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I very much sympathise with the noble Lord, in that his Question is being answered today rather than yesterday, and I very much look forward to participating in the debate tomorrow on the Private Member’s Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. The Government have no plans to change the status of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It is an independent non-departmental public body, as noble Lords will know, and the Prime Minister is democratically accountable. As I said yesterday, we do not believe that appointments should be determined by an unelected body—but, of course, we will be listening and participating in the debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister yesterday asserted the principle that the Government are entitled to have a similar majority in the Lords to the Commons, but that is not a principle that was understood in the last partial reform of the Lords in 1999. Indeed, the then Labour Government survived with fewer Peers in the Lords than the Conservatives for many years afterwards, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as Leader of the Conservative Opposition, carried a great many votes against the then Government.
Could the Minister take us a little further on that principle? Does she assume that, in the event of a change of Government, it would be appropriate for the Conservatives to retire enough Peers to enable the new Government to gain an alternative majority, or does she think that the House will then have to go towards 1,000 Peers?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As I said yesterday, I am not willing to speculate on what might or might not happen after a future general election. However, I repeat that the Conservative Party, despite winning a succession of elections, has still only 34% of the seats in the House of Lords. It is interesting that 408 Members were appointed over the 13 years from 2010, and 404 Members have been appointed over the 12 years between 2011 and 2022.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, when the Prime Minister of the day is considering honours, one of his responsibilities is to maintain the integrity of the honours system?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point, which I am happy to endorse.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, the late noble and learned Lord Mayhew and I, as ex-Attorney-Generals, gave evidence to this House’s Constitution Committee that the Government could not rely on the royal prerogative to go to war as it was outdated, and the committee agreed. The committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did not make any suggestions on how to stop a Prime Minister proposing increases in membership of this House. Will the Government consider referring to the Constitution Committee the use of the royal prerogative to recommend peerages, as its unlimited use is similarly outdated?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not see it quite that way. We have retirements and departures, and we support the continuation of encouraging more retirements. I think that the Liberal Democrats in particular have not as many retirements as some other parties. As we have said, we look more broadly at the role of the Lords, but it is an important point that significant measures—which I think could stem from the noble and learned Lord’s question—on the size and composition of the House of Lords are a matter for the democratically elected Government. Of course, the House and committees have a role in offering advice, but significant changes have to be for the Government of the day.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
If the Minister is unable to answer this question, could she at least reflect on it? Should a peerage be allocated to somebody who is a sitting MP and they subsequently blot their copybook, will the Government rescind their peerage, or ask the monarch to do so? Have we also completely now abandoned the process of two out, one in?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On the point of sitting MPs, as I said yesterday, the sort of reports that have led to this debate are rumour and speculation. However, we will of course reflect on the debates we have and have had here—yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I would like the Minister to remind me when it was that Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned. When was it? Then, we know that the speculation that has been talked about is about a resignation list, not an honours list and not nominations—we had nominations recently. That is the speculation. She keeps saying that the Prime Minister takes responsibility. Will Prime Minister Sunak admit responsibility for this list, and will he stop and make sure that he does not put His Majesty in this invidious position, because it will bring disgrace on the Government and disgrace on His Majesty?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is a convention that has been observed by successive Governments that a resignation honours list can be put forward by a departing Prime Minister. It can take a bit of time: I think that Theresa May and John Major took a few months to put their resignation lists together. They are then forwarded to the Prime Minister of the day. The practice now is that the House of Lords Appointments Commission looks at proposals and makes recommendations, which are taken into account by the Prime Minister in the confidential advice that he offers the sovereign.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that before tomorrow’s debate the Minister will study the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and I think she will see that it does not propose that the Appointments Commission should determine membership of this House but that that responsibility should remain with the Prime Minister.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am so grateful to my former boss for that excellent point of clarification. I shall listen very carefully throughout the Norton debate, and bear in mind the need to look at the detail and be very careful.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
May I suggest that the Minister visit the Members’ Cloakroom downstairs, where she will see eight red boxes containing seals that have not been collected by a number of Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev? Would one way of achieving the excellent proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for reducing the size of this House be to find a way to get rid of the Peers who fail to turn up regularly without reasonable excuse?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I cannot agree with that. Like others, the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, was nominated on his contributions to society and that included his understanding, obviously, of Russia; but also, he has been extremely critical of the murderous Putin regime. He—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Let me finish. He, like other Members who turn up less than the rest of us, brings a difference perspective. I was present for his maiden speech. The point about the House of Lords is that it is a part-time House and some people bring other aspects and contributions which are not on the Floor of the House.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
In answering the Question yesterday and today, the Minister mentioned that when, in the past, Members of the House of Commons have been nominated for a peerage, it has in a very few cases been postponed “for particular reasons”, I think her phrase was. Who determines the particular reasons? Would it be a Minister of the Crown, in which case it would be subject to judicial review, would it not?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think I was trying to make the point that it is down to the particular circumstances of the individual. In the cases in question—I think there were three or four, and I will not go into them—the particular circumstances and needs of those involved, for example, being a Member of the Scottish Parliament, meant that a deferment was possible and appropriate.
Stock Markets
(1 year, 5 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 assessment they have made of the impact of Paris overtaking London as Europe’s most valuable stock market.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, according to the Global Financial Centres Index, London is the second highest-ranked financial centre in the world after New York, while Paris is 10th. The UK continues to be the pre-eminent financial centre for derivatives and foreign exchange trading. In all equities instruments, the UK almost doubles France’s total market capitalisation at $6.2 trillion. To support the UK’s competitiveness, the Government are undertaking ambitious reforms to keep pace with innovation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I totally accept that there are various people trying to analyse the levels of trading—although it was a wake-up call last year when on some grounds Amsterdam was seen to overtake London as the premier financial trading centre, and last week some of those organisations claimed that Paris had overtaken London as the premier stock exchange. In the light of us trying to build an economy which properly rewards our workers and protects our environment, what are His Majesty’s Government doing to increase confidence in London’s reputation in financial trading and as the premier stock market?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am so glad that the right reverend Prelate has given me a chance to set out what the Government are doing. The Financial Services and Markets Bill has just completed its work in Commons Committee, setting forward a whole range of reforms to inherited EU law to make us more competitive. He also mentioned the environment. The Government’s ambition is to make London the premier place for green finance, to ensure that our financial markets take into account the challenge of climate change, so that we then can ensure that we are pursuing green growth across the whole of our economy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, having lived and worshipped for nearly 40 years in the diocese of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I have benefited greatly over the years from the spiritual advice that I have received from his predecessors and my local clergy. But is my noble friend aware that this is the first time I have ever heard a bishop of the Church of England complain that the stock market is not high enough? Is that because the bishops have ceased to worry about spreading Christianity and now propose the worship of Mammon, or is it simply a delayed anti-Brexit point, which is not the role of the bishops?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I cannot speak for the right reverend Prelate but he mentioned two things. One was ensuring green growth, which I have addressed, and the other was workers and jobs. Maybe he knows that there are 2.3 million jobs supported by the financial services sector, with two-thirds of these outside London in finance hubs including Birmingham.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, what is the Government’s considered view on which provides the greatest pressure on the standing of London as a financial centre: Brexit, or the chaos and instability caused by the last Conservative Government?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question, which he may be unsurprised to hear. In fact, in 2021, over 120 companies chose to list in London, the highest number since 2014 and ahead of its European competitors. These listings raised a total of £17 billion, the most raised in 15 years.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness must accept that in 2015 the value of the London Stock Exchange was twice that of the French stock exchange, and today it is lower. Will she also accept that there could be a number of reasons for this? First, it could be, as the Governor of the Bank of England said this week, that the markets have lost confidence across the board in the UK economy. Secondly, could it be because of the damage to the economy that the previous Prime Minister did in her 44 days? Thirdly, could this be—whatever the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, might think—a result of Brexit, as the Times said today? Or does she agree that it is all three?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I think the noble Lord forgot to mention a global pandemic and Putin’s war in Ukraine. He also forgot to acknowledge the point that I have made throughout this Question that London continues to be either the highest or second highest-ranking financial centre in the world.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, obviously we cannot be complacent, but can the Minister remind the House that Paris has 795 listed companies on its exchange, whereas London has 2,484 companies. We should look not just at the most valuable companies, such as LVMH, which is quoted in Paris and has a market capital of over €300 billion, but at all those small companies that are raising capital on the London market.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I think my noble friend has reminded the House on my behalf of those figures. I take the opportunity to say that we are not complacent about London’s position, and we are doing a lot of work beyond the Financial Services and Markets Bill to ensure that it remains competitive—the listings review from the noble Lord, Lord Hill, the second capital raising review and the wholesale markets review, among other pieces of work. The FCA has already delivered a number of rule changes based on the listings review to ensure that we remain competitive.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is not London the money laundering capital of the world?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord will know that risks come alongside being a premier financial centre. The important thing is that we take action to address those risks. That is what the Government have been doing and will continue to do. We had part one of the economic crime Bill in the previous Session and part two will be forthcoming.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the rest of Europe faces the same problem as the UK. Why are we are being hit harder than many other European countries?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is right in one respect: both the rest of Europe and the UK face heightened energy prices as a result of the war in Ukraine, and jurisdictions such as the US do not face equal pressures. But the UK also faces a tightness in its labour market that we see in the US, for example, that is not seen in other European countries. Factors have come together to make things harder for the UK in the current circumstances.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
Is it possible to produce a definitive ranking order of the causes of our economic woes, specifying war in Ukraine, Brexit, Covid and a defined period of government mismanagement? It seems to me that everybody hides behind a mix of them. Is it possible to have an independent and defined ranking order of them to cut away some of the dispute?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Our biggest economic challenge right now is the high levels of inflation that we are facing as a country, and the biggest driver of that inflation is heightened energy prices caused by the war in Ukraine. Yes, there are other factors at play, but I think those two things are undisputed.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
The fact of the matter is that the Government have weakened the City by their policies towards the single market and Europe. I wonder what the Government are doing about the fact that people who work in the City selling financial services—I declare my interest, as a member of my family works in the City—cannot sell or are restricted in selling in Europe unless they are accompanied by somebody from the country in Europe where they are trying to sell, because of the deal we have with Europe. This is weakening the City.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord. I think that our leaving the EU presents opportunities for the City, which is exactly what the Government plan to capitalise on through the Financial Services and Markets Bill and other things that I have already mentioned. We do not just trade with Europe, and we continue to be one of the pre-eminent global financial centres in the world.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that there are a number of ways of measuring the rankings of different financial centres. In the ranking to which the Question refers, one reason why Paris has overtaken London is because of the value of LVMH—one company, which has doubled its share price. It shows the challenge of making sure that we are attracting growth companies. What are the City and Government doing to make sure that we continue to attract growth companies to list in London?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that one factor in play here is that different sectors are represented more strongly in the different stock markets, which have been affected differently by the global uncertainty and inflationary pressures that we have faced. On his point about what we are doing to attract investment into the UK, I say that two elements of the growth plan that were retained were around the annual investment and small enterprise investment—I will get the acronym wrong, but I refer to the other investment allowances. We consider that to be incredibly important. I have mentioned before a number of the changes to listing rules including, for example, dual class share structures, which have been taken forward by the FCA.
Business of the House
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 23 November to enable the Counsellors of State Bill [HL] to be taken through its remaining stages that day, and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Missile Incident in Poland
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the loss of life in Poland is a brutal reminder of the tragic consequences that Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is having. I am sure the whole House will wish to express condolences to the families of those killed. As NATO’s Secretary-General said yesterday, and as the Statement reflected:
“Russia bears the ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.”
The Government of Poland, along with NATO, should be praised for their level-headed response. We should also recognise the risk of miscalculation that results from this war. Is the Minister able to give a further update on the NATO meeting yesterday to discuss its reaction to the incident? Can he also confirm that we are, either directly or through NATO, giving maximum support to the investigation to establish the full facts?
This week has seen the largest barrage of missiles against Ukraine since the war began, with a completely unjustified focus on civilian infrastructure, which we all know will have consequences for innocent people, families and children as the winter approaches. We must continue to offer our full solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and of course the Opposition are absolutely at one with the Government in our support for Ukraine. I hope, however, that the Minister can tell us that, in expressing our solidarity, we are also exploring new ways of bolstering Ukraine’s defences. In particular, can he tell us what further steps we are now taking to strengthen its air defence capacity?
In terms of maintaining global unity in support of Ukraine, I assume that the Prime Minister’s Statement on the G20 will cover a major part of this, but can the Minister tell us more specifically what we have been doing with the EU to ensure that we maintain absolute unity in the fight against Putin’s illegal war?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also associate these Benches with the condolences offered by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to those affected by this. We agree with the NATO Secretary-General when he said that
“this is not Ukraine’s fault”
because the cause is Russia, which “bears the ultimate responsibility”. Putin will of course seek division, and therefore it is important that the UK and our allies are together with President Zelensky in supporting the Polish Government and investigating the direct cause of this.
It is to be welcomed that the UK and our allies at the G20 conference reacted in a sensible and cautious way. I support the work of the Government on this. The Foreign Secretary said in the Statement that
“the UK stands ready to provide any practical or technical assistance”
to the Polish Government. Can the Minister say whether the Polish Government has asked for that from the UK and whether that is to be provided? We offer great resources when it comes to investigative capacity, and our intelligence networks are of course second to none. I hope that they are fully open to the Polish authorities.
The Government have said that the UK has provided
“more than 1,000 surface-to-air missiles thus far”
to Ukraine. We have supported the deployment of UK assets provided to Ukraine. Can the Minister give an estimate of how many of those have so far been used and whether UK support with regard to missile capability needs to be replenished? The Minister knows well enough from questions in previous debates that we have sought clarity as to UK stocks of supplies, not only for supporting Ukraine but for our own defensive capabilities. It would be helpful to know what level of resources that we have made available has been used.
Can the UK now work with our allies to move into a new phase of tackling what could well be apparent impunity? The random bombardment of cities with missiles from the Putin regime is fully grotesque. There is no question in my mind that this is now absolutely a clear crime of aggression, in addition to the crimes against humanity that we have already discussed. Can the Minister update the House with regard to the UK policy on the crime of aggression? The UK has not ratified the amendments to the Rome Statute made in Kampala in 2010. We have not been as clear as I believe we should be in support of those who have called for a hybrid chamber on the crime of aggression of the UN and Ukraine, so that we can see movement on reducing the prospect of impunity for the Putin regime. Is this not now the appropriate time to review the UK’s position on the failure to ratify the amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression? The UK should be seen as a facilitator in moving to establish a chamber where we can see some of the crimes that have so clearly committed by the Putin regime put to the judicial process, so that there can be punishments for the crimes that are so obviously taking place.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, for their strong support of the Government’s position. I align myself totally with the condolences extended to those impacted by the tragic deaths in Poland, which I am sure reflect the view of the whole House. Let us not forgot that this is a direct action caused by Mr Putin. There were 80-plus missile attacks across Ukraine in a blanket manner. We are of course working with the Ukrainian Government, and again I am thankful to both the Front Benches and their respective parties across both Houses for their strong support for the position that the Government have taken in support of Ukraine, and indeed in our strong alliances with our key partners through NATO, the European Union and with other countries as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the importance of co-ordination with NATO. As he may be aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister conducted, first and foremost, a direct call with the Polish President, showing absolute solidarity with President Duda. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Foreign Minister of Poland and the Prime Minister also spoke immediately to President Zelensky. Indeed, we co-ordinated some of these calls at the G20 with other key allies. As for the response, there was co-ordination with the EU through various partnerships, including the convening of a meeting of the G7 by President Biden, which the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission attended. This underlines the strong unity of purpose and action across the piece among all allies in support of Ukraine, and of course standing in solidarity with a fellow NATO member, Poland.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about our co-ordination and support of air defences. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we have provided support, and I assure both noble Lords that we work in a co-ordinated fashion with our NATO partners to ensure that the munitions and equipment required by Ukraine and other NATO allies are kept constantly under review in the current crisis. There was an emergency meeting of NATO ambassadors that the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to NATO also attended, which covered many of these issues around exact requirements and the response from Poland, but also, importantly, how we as the NATO alliance should react to the situation that arose.
It was quite notable—as I am sure all noble Lords would acknowledge—the restraint that was shown, including in public statements. I remember sitting in your Lordships’ House as this issue unravelled and, as I left, I sought an immediate update. With the continuing war and Russia’s indiscriminate bombing in Ukraine, it was, frankly, deeply concerning to see that this situation had crossed the border. I have been to the border and seen some of the air defences of the Polish Government. Again, I reassure both noble Lords that we are fully aligned and co-ordinate through NATO on the level of support required, not just the direct support that we are providing to the Ukrainian authorities, which we have listed many times, but how we can co-ordinate our best response as the NATO alliance.
On technical support to Poland, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that those conversations have happened; he can take it as read that we are offering whatever support Poland needs. Poland has played a phenomenal role in the situation in Ukraine, as I and other noble Lords who have visited the region have witnessed, through the support it has provided for those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine, including support within Poland. We talked the other day about victims of sexual violence in conflict, and there are victims of sexual violence in this conflict. Again, we are working very closely with the Polish authorities to ensure that the correct information is provided to those seeking action on such crimes.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about atrocity crimes and co-ordinating our response. I assure him that we have had detailed discussions, including with the ICC prosecutor. As he will be aware, we have set up a specific group with our key partners to look at atrocities on the ground in Ukraine. He asked about co-ordination with the EU. That group works specifically with the EU and the United States, and we will continue to work in a co-ordinated fashion to ensure that the perpetrators of crimes in Ukraine are brought to justice quickly. We need to learn from conflicts past. The mechanics, the structures and the systems being set up in Ukraine will allow prosecutions to take place effectively and in an expeditious manner. It is particularly important that we ensure that testimonies are collated. We are working on that front specifically, and I will welcome all noble Lords attending the conference at the end of the month, where we can have a specific focus on how we can further strengthen our response through testimonies, particularly those from survivors of sexual violence, to ensure that crimes inflicted can be documented appropriately. We are working with key groups such as Nadia’s Initiative to ensure that survivors are at the forefront of our mind.
I thank both noble Lords for their support. I assure them that we are co-ordinating with our G7 partners. It was interesting that this took place during the G20; it perhaps allowed other countries within the G20 who have not been as focused and strong in their support for Ukraine to reflect very carefully on what this conflict means, for not just Ukraine or Europe but the world as a whole.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the war has now been raging in Ukraine for several months, and the danger of armed conflict is that you can get unplanned escalation. There have been a number of incidents that could have led to such unplanned escalation, including the one in Poland that we are discussing. That would lead to world war. We are having to replenish our own stocks and we are providing stuff to Ukraine. Does the Minister agree that it seems extraordinary that, in this many months, we have not actually increased our defence spending? As I say, this could easily tip over into world war. There are real pressures and we have real problems within the defence forces, and we really need to do something. Not only have we not done anything so far but it sounds as though we are about to cut defence spending, which is extraordinary in the world we are in.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. In the context of Ukraine, we have already committed to the funding we gave previously to Ukraine for military support. That £2.3 billion of military support will continue for next year as well; that is a standing commitment. The noble Lord talked about the importance of replenishing stocks. I assure him that, as we continue to support the requirements of countries such as Ukraine, and indeed our commitments through NATO, we keep a very close watch on our own assets and replenishing stocks for our own defences as well.
The noble Lord raises two very important points about the continued commitment from the Government to military and defence spending during the current crisis we face. As I speak, a Statement is being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. Equally, we have made commitments internationally, through our spending on NATO. I suggest that our commitment to NATO spending, particularly at this time, is an important call to the other countries of NATO to ensure that they are also spending the required 2% of GDP on their contributions to NATO defences.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I shall continue on this theme, strongly supporting the noble Lord, Lord West, in what he said. Is my noble friend absolutely confident that, if this conflict escalates, as well it might, this country is not only able to continue supplying Ukraine but has sufficient munitions itself to tide us through a decent period of time? That is vital. Can my noble friend give the House that assurance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we work very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. As I have said numerous times, the first duty of any Government is the security and defence of their own country and people. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that we have among the best—arguably the best—Armed Forces, with their experience, insights and the professionalism that they bring to the world scene. That is reflected in our contributions to NATO, which remain very strong. I agree with my noble friend that as we look to support Ukraine, it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord West, reminded us, that we stay equally strong in our defences and defence spending at home.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, one of the most remarkable features of the conflict in Ukraine since February has been the consistency and quality of the leadership of President Zelensky, but in his statement since the strike on Poland he seems not to be as co-ordinated with NATO. Indeed, he seems to be trying to drag NATO into more direct involvement in the conflict. Can the Minister assure your Lordship’s House that His Majesty’s Government are making it clear to President Zelensky that expanding the conflict is in nobody’s interest?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know from his own insights, experiences and dealings with Ukraine the importance of ensuring that we stand firm and solid with our friends and partners in supporting it. What President Zelensky’s country is going through is unimaginable. Let us not forget that, as I said, at the time of this incident in Poland missiles were flying in abundance over every city in Ukraine—every key city was under attack in a blanket, indiscriminate missile attack. What we saw in response from President Zelensky, whom we all agree has played an amazing role, was a strong defence of the territorial sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine.
I know the noble Lord is fully aligned with that objective, but I give him that reassurance. That is why, as I said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, along with other key G20, G7 and NATO leaders, talked directly from the G20 to the President of Poland and, importantly, President Zelensky about the importance of co-ordination. As Ukraine is confronting a time of war, it is important that calm heads prevail.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the risk of miscalculation in war is very great. The Statement we are discussing is somewhat outdated and has been overtaken by events, which have shown that cool and calm analysis is necessary in what would otherwise be a dangerous situation. The noble Lord referred to the moment when he first heard the news; when I first heard it, like many others, I feared the worst. Fortunately, we now know what happened.
It was a coincidence that the G20 leaders were meeting in Indonesia. It is not for nothing that the photograph of people clustered around the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister has been published all over the world, but they just happened to be there together. Can the noble Lord assure the House that the experience of this incident will be used to make sure that the mechanisms for conferring within NATO and, in light of the previous comments, with the President of Ukraine—whose views slightly diverged from what has otherwise been a fairly common front—are absolutely in order? God forbid that this should ever happen again, but if it did, we would need an effective and quick mechanism to avoid the risk of any terrible miscalculation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Viscount. I assure him that, even within our internal systems, the importance of how information is cascaded, decisions are taken and people are informed is part and parcel of learning from any type of incident such as this. That needs to be reflected in the systems within the FCDO and the MoD and across government. I talked to officials yesterday about this very point. As he said, the G20 was together and President Biden immediately convened a meeting of the G7. That is why NATO matters. Different steps were taken in different places at the same time, which reflected the planning that has gone into ensuring co-ordination at a time of war. As I have said time and again, and I know noble Lords agree, this is not about one country being at war with another or a war on one continent—an escalation of this crisis would have global implications and consequences.
While it was perhaps coincidental, I suggest that there was also a degree of divine intervention at work to ensure that those leaders who have perhaps not been as strong in recognising the impact of this war, not just in terms of food or energy security but its degree of escalation, had that reality brought home. I assure the noble Viscount that the systems and structures are in place. I hope he also recognises that in some of the calls my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made; one of the trilateral calls he immediately made was with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, to ensure that our response as His Majesty’s Government was fully aligned.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the missile strike on Przewodów was a tragedy. Even if it was not deliberate, it was in the context of a brutal Russian bombardment on many cities and civilian targets in Ukraine, so only one country can be responsible for it. The Minister said something about air defences. Supplying hardware is one thing but can he say something about the training we are giving to Ukrainian military personnel to man these systems?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are fully engaged in training personnel; from the annexation of Crimea, we have been working strongly with the Ukrainian authorities and have specific programmes for it. There is currently a live programme training 10,000 personnel and a raft of other programmes and initiatives that we are running directly with the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that they do not just have the best equipment, which we are providing, but are well trained in using it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
The Minister and my noble friend were right to praise the restraint of the Polish Government—incidentally, they have also responded magnificently to the refugee crisis—but does this incident not reveal vulnerabilities? Poland held back and refused to invoke Article 5 of NATO, yet Russia is waging cyberwarfare at the moment on a number of NATO countries. Is it the Government’s view that cyberwarfare is capable of leading to an invocation of Article 5?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will not speculate on the triggers of Article 5. The Polish Government followed the protocols very specifically; they reflected on the Article 4 elements of ensuring that consultation took place immediately with NATO members, which was the right approach as facts were being established. The noble Lord rightly raises the threat and challenge posed by cyberwarfare. I do not recall if he was in the House yesterday when we discussed the situation in Georgia—the continued occupation of the breakaway republics and the Russian influence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia—but one of the areas of support we are providing to the Georgian authorities is in exactly that space. The United Kingdom is among the leaders on cyber, in both dealing with cyber threat and cyber defences. I assure him that we are focused on all these fronts in our response to, and support of, not just Ukraine but other countries directly impacted by Russian aggression.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister did not reply to my question about the failure of the UK to ratify the Kampala amendments to the Rome statute on the crime of aggression, which means that we are unable to promote the UN General Assembly and Ukraine in setting up a hybrid chamber to prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression. Can he respond to that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of Ukraine’s request on this. It has approached us directly but we have reservations, not least about how the structures would work. I answered the question at least partially in saying that we have dealt with these issues directly with the International Criminal Court, which is working on the ground. We want accountability and justice for the perpetrators of crimes and are looking to work through the practical solutions that can best bring that about as quickly as possible.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, are there any plans to offer Poland increased assistance in patrolling its airspace?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I said, we are working through NATO to identify exactly what the requirements are for Poland. It is a member of NATO, and the NATO protocols are very clear. We are working very closely with our NATO allies and the Secretary-General to ensure that Poland’s requirements are met by the alliance as a whole, of which the UK is a part.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, if the House will allow me to return to my previous question, we have been teetering on the brink of a possible world war. No one wants that to happen, but mistakes, errors and miscalculations occur. Does the Minister agree that, on that basis, bearing in mind that this has been happening for several months, our Armed Forces should be able to move seamlessly into an alliance that is in a position to fight that world war? Does he believe that the investment we have put into defence in the last few months has put us in that position?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have made major investments. Without going into the territory of the Ministry of Defence, the Government have been strong in our commitment to our defences and our support for our NATO partners. Equally importantly, we have stood up for and strongly supported Ukraine. We have been among the leaders in military, humanitarian and economic support for Ukraine, which reflects the planning that has gone on.
However, I am sure I speak for every single noble Lord in recognising that we do not want to venture into an escalation. We have seen the dangers of that, and I fully concur with most noble Lords that a war such as the one on Ukraine can escalate very quickly, even through a missile which may have had other intentions. That could happen, or deliberate actions could happen. It is very clear that Mr Putin continues to wage this war on a sovereign nation. There is an easy fix to de-escalate: stop the war now.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Could the Minister comment on the Norwegian Government’s decision to advise its people that they should take appropriate steps to prepare themselves for a nuclear attack?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said earlier, I am not going to indulge in speculation. Every Government speak for their own citizens and my job is to speak for the United Kingdom Government. The primary responsibility of any Government, of any political colour, has to be, and should remain so, the security of its own citizens, first and foremost. I assure you His Majesty’s Government take that very seriously.
Long Covid
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
That this House takes note of the short and long term challenges presented by Long Covid.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I think the first thing I need to say is that Covid is not over. People are still catching Covid; some are still being very ill; some end up with long Covid. Our NHS is still battling with Covid itself and the terrible effect it has had on the whole of the NHS’s ability to do its job and catch up with the backlog which Covid produced, on top of the waiting lists which already existed and were growing in 2019 before the pandemic. This is the background of our discussion today
Given the number of speakers across the House for this debate, I am very pleased that so many agree it is about time we reflected on the emerging short and long-term challenges of long Covid. I thank the Library, the British Medical Association, Nuffield Health and many others who provided us with such large quantities of briefing.
I thank all the speakers who will follow me, and I anticipate a well-informed debate which will no doubt be challenging for the Minister, not least because, although this is designated a health debate, I think if 2.1 million—and I have seen lower and higher figures—of our fellow citizens are reporting experiences of some or many of the range of symptoms of long Covid, then this has wider societal implications. It affects the workplace, incomes, families and our mental health and social care services. It raises questions about defining a disabling condition, which will affect treatment, support, insurance, pensions, income support, careers, jobs and the reasonable adjustments which need to be made, and how we will support children who may get long Covid.
Part of the challenge is that it seems there is yet no internationally agreed clinical definition of long Covid, and the evidence base on what constitutes long Covid, in terms of range and length of symptoms, is still emerging. In October 2021, the World Health Organization defined “post-Covid-19 condition” as occurring
“in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, usually 3 months from the onset of COVID-19 with symptoms and that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.”
More recently, the NICE guidance on managing the long-term effects of Covid-19 covers care for
“people who have signs and symptoms that develop during or after an infection consistent with COVID-19, continue for more than four weeks and are not explained by an alternative diagnosis.”
As noble Lords will be aware, common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, problems with memory, heart palpitations, dizziness, joint pain and many others.
To advance our understanding of long Covid, it is crucial that prevalence data is collected, and this is my first substantive point for the Minister. Government commitments have been made; for example, in June 2021, NHS England committed to setting up a long Covid registry to collect long Covid activity data. However, to date, data is not collected accurately and consistently across the UK, meaning the UK Government are still relying on ONS self-reported data. When will this important data collection happen in a consistent fashion?
There are currently a lot of unknowns when it comes to treating long Covid. Despite recent investment, more research is needed to increase the understanding of the condition, including psychological aspects, and to develop more effective treatments. In October 2020, NHS England and NHS Improvement set out a five-point plan for long Covid support, which included a commitment of £50 million to fund research. The Government said that £20 million of the £50 million previously committed to research would go into 15 UK-based research studies, through the NIHR, the National Institute for Health Research, to better understand the condition, improve diagnosis and find new treatments. As part of this investment, various studies are investigating whether there might be potential pharmaceutical treatments that would be effective in treating long Covid.
Long Covid is a focus for researchers globally, with the European Commission announcing it would accelerate its research into long Covid and develop treatments, while the United States is also running clinical trials. I would like to ask the Minister whether we are participating in these research programmes, and, if so, what are the outcomes?
Similarly, major pharmaceutical companies have demonstrated an interest in developing targeted new treatments or repurposing existing ones. Although researchers have been surveying the broad spectrum of symptoms associated with long Covid, it has to be said they have not found one biological explanation. It is likely there are various mechanisms involved. Similarities between long Covid and other post-infection syndromes need to be considered, and I am confident this will be raised during the debate today.
Despite the investment into research for treatments for long Covid, much of the research is in its early stages, resulting in a lack of evidence on effective treatments. In terms of resources, of the million or more who are reporting with long Covid, only 60,000 patients can access treatment. This means that hundreds of thousands of people with long Covid are feeling isolated and frustrated in their search for treatment, and as a result sometimes live in poverty and despair. I would like to commend the patient groups that have been doing a great job in mutual support and campaigning.
Let us look at the research, of which there must be much more. It is true the Government agreed to invest £50 million in research, although I think there are some blockages, which I would like to raise with the Minister, such as approvals to facilitate research pathways, and through developing pathways support more rapid implementation of promising findings in relation to the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of long Covid. It would seem, despite the increased funding in research, the UK Government need to increase the infrastructure to meet the scale of the problem. While the MHRA, through the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway, aims to accelerate the time it takes to get treatments to market, there may need to be some changes to clinical trials research legislation to enable this to be carried out. Is that the case, and are the Government considering it, and what should happen next, because it is vital that if the research is there and the pharmaceutical industry wants to bring forward treatments, we should make sure the pathway is completely clear of any obstacles.
There are huge challenges concerning work and long Covid. The first is the need to support the post-pandemic return to work, which we have discussed before in this House. Since the pandemic, there has been a marked increase in the number of workers aged 50 to 64 who have left employment. Recent labour market statistics from the ONS found that the number of people in this age group classified as “economically inactive” stood at 374,000-plus from June to August this year, compared with 37,000 in the first three months of 2020, as Covid-19 took hold. A recent analysis by the ONS found that 51% of people in this age category who had left work since the pandemic and had not gone back had reported a physical or mental health condition or illness, including long Covid. Apart from anything else, this points to the fact that people need extra support from employers to prevent them being squeezed out of the workplace. It seems to me that guidelines for employers are required—are they available? Are they being planned?
There are health and social care workers who have been particularly exposed during the pandemic. Of course, long Covid makes it even more difficult for the NHS to function as it should, to say nothing of the lives being wrecked and the families suffering terribly. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has made its recommendations to the Secretary of State regarding the circumstances in which long Covid should be prescribed as an occupational disease. Why have the Government not acted on this? Covid special leave provisions ended across the UK by 1 September 2022. The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for enhanced Covid-19 sickness pay provisions to continue until a long-term strategy for dealing with Covid-19 is in place. I need to know why the Government have not put a sufficient compensation scheme in place for healthcare workers who are developing long Covid.
Further to this, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions published the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report on Covid-19 and its occupational impacts. This report was provided to the Secretary of State and was laid before Parliament yesterday; I thank the Minister for making it available to this House. The council argues that there is sufficient evidence to recommend prescription for health and social care workers whose work brings them into frequent proximity to patients and clients where there is a significantly increased risk of infection, subsequent illness and death. Now that the Government have that report, and it has been made public, will they act upon it?
We need to address the issue of preventing long Covid in children. Will the Government develop a campaign with more consistent messaging about long Covid and clear information and guidance for parents regarding the benefits of vaccination for children and how it can protect children from long Covid?
Clearly, there needs to be more support for health professionals to identify and treat long Covid. All health professionals should be supported and equipped with up-to-date information to ensure that they understand the variable symptoms of long Covid and are aware of the available support and how to refer people to it. In terms of the funding and resources to establish multidisciplinary services, pathways for long Covid should focus on addressing patients’ multisystem symptoms and rehabilitation needs and provide individualised care plans accordingly. There also needs to be a more consistent provision of long Covid clinics, including for children, so that there is less variation in waiting times for treatment. Increased funding and independent workforce planning are key to the success of these services. How many more multidisciplinary centres are planned, and by when?
Turning to improved financial and wider support for people unable to work due to long Covid, the Government need urgently to provide employers with better guidance on how to support employees with long Covid. Perhaps the Government should set up a task force to review the UK’s statutory sick pay allowance system and whether it should be increased so that it is in line with other OECD countries. Does the Minister accept that the decision to end special Covid leave for NHS staff has put patients and healthcare workers at risk? Why do the Government not reinstate this scheme until a longer-term compensation scheme to support staff is in place?
At the end of this debate, I would welcome an acknowledgement by the Minister that the Government recognise that long Covid is having a major impact on productivity, employment and wider society, as well as our health services. I would like the Minister to tell me that they have a plan for this to be tackled in a comprehensive fashion across government. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for bringing about this important debate. She has held the Government’s feet to the fire—in fact, she held my feet to the fire—on this issue, and I absolutely commend her persistence.
Rehabilitation in general and post-viral syndromes in particular have a long history of being horribly overlooked in this country. I am afraid that this regrettable neglect has contributed darkly to the long-term poor health of many in this nation. However, before I speak about the consequences of this on long Covid, I will take a moment to recognise that Britain has done more than almost any other country to address long Covid. Professor Chris Whitty and the CMO’s office prioritised NIHR research, with £50 million going into 19 projects, giving a clear signal for other research. The NHS, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, launched a welcome five-point plan, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and Amanda Pritchard has rolled out excellent long-term long Covid clinics. Treatments such as monoclonal antibodies and pulmonary rehabilitation are emerging as a result. I pay tribute to Dr Harry Brünjes, who pioneered the Breathe programme at the English National Opera, which is a fantastic example of social prescribing that has produced some very promising clinical trial results. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, who kicked off the important REACT programme at Imperial College which has generated hefty longitudinal population studies. Lastly, I pay tribute to the patient groups, who are both vocal and thoughtful in their responses, for their testimony.
Despite these considerable collective efforts, I am sad to say that the long Covid story has become a parable for how the UK health system fails to protect people’s freedom from disease and illness. It fails to properly rehabilitate our sick, and we are paying a horrible economic price as a result. The scale of long Covid is enormous, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, but the clinical response I referred to is sadly inadequate. The ONS says that there are 1.5 million sufferers, yet the long Covid clinics can see only 60,000 patients per year. Patient groups are frustrated that, when they do get seen, clinicians do not have the latest pathways that might lead to positive outcomes. The NIHR agrees with patients that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
We are familiar in this country with the rationing of scarce health resources and the uneven distribution of the latest research—uncomfortable though that is—but I will focus a few words on the profound economic effects of this troubling British healthcare strategy. ONS data reports that 500,000 people have left the workforce over the last 18 months, and 75,000 of those are economically inactive due to long Covid. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has a slightly different figure of 110,000, and it says that the cost is almost £1.5 billion in lost earnings a year. Another IFS study suggests that there is an average of 2.5 hours of sick leave per worker being taken due to those who have long Covid. Either way, the OBR has recognised that Covid in the round could cost around £2.7 billion in welfare benefits such as incapacity and housing. That is an absolutely staggering sum.
My point is that we cannot shrug our shoulders about the impact of conditions like long Covid on the economy. We have to take on the challenge of making this country healthier and pivot towards prevention. Andrew Haldane, chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts, put it well in his recent speech:
“We’re in a situation for the first time, probably since the Industrial Revolution, where health and wellbeing are in retreat … Having been an accelerator of wellbeing for the last 200 years, health is now serving as a brake in the rise of growth and wellbeing of our citizens.”
Yesterday, Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, told the House of Commons Treasury Committee that part of the reason the country was being held back was the sharp decline in the size of the workforce since Covid.
Despite this, the Treasury plan for living with Covid makes no mention of investment in rehabilitation or major initiatives for getting the workforce back to work. Finances in the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, the main legacy public health organisations—
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Will the noble Lord give way, please? Does he agree there is a growing concern about the serious side-effects that the booster vaccinations can have? Does he agree with me that the Government should look at this very carefully?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the vaccine programme has been an astonishing success, and the uptake of those vaccines has shown the enormous public confidence in them. I will speak on another date about the profound impact this has had on the health of the nation.
My point here is that, at this moment when we are feeling the effects of Covid heavily on our workforce and economy, the finances at the UKHSA and OHID are under huge pressure. The public health infrastructure built over the pandemic has largely been dismantled. At the same time, we have an NHS straining to look after the sick and a workforce many of whom are too sick to work.
It is time that we work towards a new political settlement that prioritises the health of the nation and not just the treatment of the sick; and that we make the operational decision in health and care to move towards prevention.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for bringing this important subject to the House. I have a very close relative who has had ME for a number of years, and I have seen at first hand how debilitating and life changing it can be. I have become the vice-chair of the APPG for ME and I have talked to hundreds of ME patients who have had their condition ignored or ridiculed. They have been subject to inappropriate and sometimes dangerous medical intervention, and they are struggling with an employment and benefits system that simply does not acknowledge the realities of their condition. Those 250,000 ME patients are now, in effect, being joined by over 2 million long Covid sufferers.
It is worth starting by pointing out that debilitating post-infection syndromes such as long Covid are not new clinical entities. In American medical literature, ME-like symptoms are described as far back as 1934. When ME was first noticed in this country it was described as “yuppie flu”, but in fact these syndromes affect millions of people suffering from a range of viruses, including those living in poor, third-world countries.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that one in 10 people with long Covid have given up work, with “persistent labour market effects”. This month’s Lancet said that
“post-acute infection syndromes could pose a substantial public health burden in the near future if appropriate measures are not … taken”.
Despite the huge economic cost they inflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, post-viral illnesses have been neglected, dismissed and under-researched for far too long. We still have no diagnostic blood tests for either long Covid or ME.
As well as the breathlessness, chest pains and loss of taste or smell which characterise long Covid, patients exhibit a cluster of symptoms such as the debilitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise, cognitive dysfunction, PoTS and sleep disturbances that are also diagnostic of ME and other post-infection syndromes. While all the funding for research into long Covid must be welcomed, it is disappointing that some researchers are still ignoring or are not aware of what has already been learned about what may be causing ME and how this could help us to understand the causes of long Covid.
Almost 40 clinical trials into possible treatments for long Covid have been registered, some involving interventions that have already been assessed in ME. Some of these treatment trials have small sample sizes or no control groups. The lessons do not appear to have been learned from the use of poor-quality methodology in many clinical trials involving ME. Some health professionals who are managing people with long Covid are unaware of or ignoring what we have learned about the management of ME and other post-infection syndromes, on activity and energy management particularly. The ME charity sector produces excellent information on symptom and energy management, as does the new NICE guideline, but people with long Covid are often simply unaware of this information, as are many health workers.
Another important lesson that needs to be learned from ME is that misdiagnosis can occur when people with chronic fatigue are not properly assessed and are labelled as having a post-viral syndrome. There are some very disturbing cases being reported of people having long Covid when, in fact, they have another medical condition. A Suffolk councillor recently featured in the news when, it turned out, her long-standing diagnosis of long Covid actually proved to be lung cancer.
Research into the cause and diagnosis of, and effective treatments for, long Covid could help those with ME. The ME Association has requested that clinical trials for long Covid treatments include a group with ME. What has been learned about the management of ME can help many people with long Covid.
Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist at Yale, said:
“No one wanted the pandemic, but sometimes a jolt to the system can create innovation in ways that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise”.
That should be our guiding principle.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for initiating this debate. I am concerned about the low level of awareness of something that affects up to 2 million people. One person said to me on Monday, “Does that mean they’re still contagious?” I am also concerned about the economic implications, particularly for the health service, whose staff were on the front line throughout the worst period. My third concern, which my noble friend Lady Thornton already raised, is about continuing government funding for research into long Covid.
On public awareness, are the Government satisfied that they are doing enough to raise the profile of the devastating effect of long Covid? Now that the newspapers and media appear to have moved on from covering Covid, the sufferers must feel like the disappeared.
I chair the mesothelioma oversight committee, which ensures that payments are made speedily and efficiently to some of the 3,000 people a year who are dying from mesothelioma. It has a low profile, but at least those diagnosed have the satisfaction of knowing that they and their families will have financial support—thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, when he was the Minister.
Of course, I do not claim that long Covid is a terminal illness for most sufferers. I am grateful to and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for using the parallel cases of ME sufferers. Awareness, financial support and funded research are vital in all these health areas. What plans do the Government have to raise awareness and enable families to feel supported?
Secondly, on the economic and employment implications, I am aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Research is doing some research into economic evaluation, but does the noble Lord have more information about the impact on health workers? How many are affected, and in what areas? Given the number of vacancies in the health service, surely a focus on the recovery of these workers as speedily as possible would pay dividends.
The BMA said that doctors who had contracted long Covid had been let down by the Government’s failure to provide adequate support, with staff faced with a premature return to work—assuming they are physically able to—or with being unable to pay their mortgages. We know that 2,100 health and care workers lost their lives due to Covid-19, and at least 199,000 NHS workers are living with long Covid. They are seven times more likely to have had severe Covid than other workers, and much of this took place with no or inadequate PPE.
Temporary staff or locums have already lost their jobs because they did not have job security. Does the Minister know how many formal absence procedures have been initiated in the health service, and how many people have been dismissed due to long Covid? We still do not appear to know the extent of the loss to the labour market. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, also broached this. The Resolution Foundation stated that it could be 600,000. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that it was one in 10. It is clear that the majority are not getting enough help. NHS England data suggested that, up to August 2022, only 60,000 people suffering from long Covid had been assessed by an NHS specialist. If the 600,000 figure is correct, the gap is concerning.
This brings us back to the questions of awareness and profile. The patient does not know that they can get help, and the GP does not recognise the symptoms. Either way, there is a huge job to do. What role do the Government have in improving the position?
The Chief Executive of NHS England, Amanda Pritchard, said recently:
“The NHS faces the toughest winter of my career and potentially the toughest winter in its history.”
This does not sound like someone expecting adequate support from the Government.
In the paper, Our Plan for Patients, published by the DHSC in September, the then Secretary of State, Thérèse Coffey, said that
“this Government will be on your side when you need care the most.”
This sounds fine, but there is no reference to long Covid in that paper.
Finally, what assurances can the Minister give about the Government’s continuing funding for research? I am aware that the NIHR is conducting 19 studies. Ten years ago, I was an independent member of one of its sub-committees, but I no longer have that link. Many of these pieces of research are still in progress, but some themes are emerging. Mesothelioma was underresearched for decades. Will the Minister guarantee that this will not happen with long Covid?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for having secured this important debate and for the very thoughtful way in which she introduced it. I declare my own interests as chair of King’s Health Partners, chairman of UK Biobank and an active researcher in the field of thrombosis, a particular pathophysiology that has both impacted acutely on Covid and may have some role in long Covid symptoms.
We have heard that some 2.1 million people—some 3.3% of our population—have self-reported, as part of the ONS data collection programme, symptoms attributable to long Covid. It is striking that some 500,000 of those individuals reported having had Covid some two years previously. This represents a substantial, ongoing, chronic burden of disease. We should all be conscious of its potential impact on the way in which we are able to deliver healthcare through the National Health Service.
As we have heard, little is known about the etiology of long Covid. There is a suggestion that part of it may be attributable in some individuals to a failure to properly clear the virus from their bodies. It is also possible that there are genetic determinants that drive individual immune response and that this dysfunction is part of the explanation for long Covid symptoms. There is a now well-established phenomenon of dysfunction in the microvascular and endothelial cells that line blood vessels, which may be responsible for some of the long Covid symptoms. Indeed, a profound hypercoagulable state—a tendency to a risk of thrombosis and blood clots—manifests itself in an important number of long Covid patients.
We have heard of the importance of research in trying to understand more about the etiology of long Covid and to better understand its history. This is critically important if we are to be able not only to research and develop new therapies but to address the question of long Covid through the mechanisms underlying its development and sustained impact. This research is also critically important in understanding how we should properly develop services to manage patients. At the moment, His Majesty’s Government have committed some £194 million to the provision of clinics and services to manage Covid patients—some £90 million of which is to be spent in the financial year 2022-23. However, when one looks at the burden, this resource is only able to provide services for some 5,000 patients a month. The substantial demographic of long Covid is running into many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. We clearly need to understand from prospective research not only what volume of services is needed but how those services should be constructed, based on our knowledge of the natural history of the disease, in order to adequately and properly manage the requirements of those patients beyond symptom control.
Is the Minister content that the approach to research is sufficient? As we have heard, some £50 million has been committed by the Chief Medical Officer to a variety of research programmes. Is he able to address the question, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, of why a national cohort has not been established to allow us to marshal the current clinical burden of long Covid in our country and then to apply an appropriate methodology and protocols to the evaluation of these individuals? Research undertaken in this systematic fashion is not only highly efficient but provides the best opportunity for us rapidly to understand and start addressing the questions that need to be addressed if we are to be able to develop these new therapies and organise and deliver services in the most appropriate way for these patients.
Beyond the financial commitment to the development of a long Covid research cohort, there is also the need to ensure that the data collected through routine exposure of these patients to NHS services can be marshalled to inform the research effort. Those data should be able to link with other datasets whose huge value in addressing acute Covid and in the post-infection period has been established. I reiterate my interest as chairman of UK Biobank, which has been used in this regard. It is a unique resource, available to the country, where half a million of our fellow citizens have provided their biological material. The genome in those individuals has now been mapped and the opportunity exists to interrogate the dataset, using that biological material, to assess novel biomarkers and the prevalence of disease. The deep phenotyping and repeat imaging give the capacity to understand structural end organ dysfunction in Covid. All this requires an approach from His Majesty’s Government with regard to data sharing, within and across datasets, between researchers in different institutions and, as we have heard, with those outside the public sector wishing to support this research. Is the Minister able to provide some reassurance on this?
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this important and timely debate.
I will focus my remarks on the rural dimension of long Covid, which is having an impact on many people in Devon where I am privileged to serve. I am concerned about rural sustainability and the need to ensure that the Government’s levelling-up agenda is not focused exclusively on urban deprivation. Rural poverty may not show up on government statistics because it is dispersed in pockets, but it is just as real. Research suggests that structural inequalities, including poverty, are important in the development and course of Covid-19 and may form an important context for long Covid.
As far as Devon is concerned, the picture postcard view of my county beloved by holidaymakers is only half the story. The best information we have is that there are currently around 16,000 people living with long Covid in Devon and, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, will corroborate, it is impacting on the economic life of our county.
As in other parts of the United Kingdom, we know that the groups most likely to be affected by long Covid are people between the ages of 35 and 69; women; people living in more deprived areas; those in care; those with a high body mass index; those working in close-contact professions; and those living with long-term health conditions. Of the 16,000 people in Devon living with long Covid, only around 70% have been referred to long Covid treatment services. Research has revealed that children, older people, men and those living in deprived areas are less likely to seek help and be referred.
The pandemic has impacted people’s health and self-confidence, well-being and the demand for services. It has had an adverse effect on mental health, with higher levels of mental health anxiety and loneliness. For those suffering from long Covid, unsurprisingly, research has revealed that they have lower levels of life satisfaction and happiness, and some have lost hope of change or improvement. Overall, the pandemic has had a greater impact on those groups already suffering from greater disadvantage and higher health inequities than average across the county. In Devon, service providers have reported increased demand for mental health, domestic violence, and drug and alcohol support services. There have also been increased concerns over the safety of children, young people, and vulnerable adults.
Sadly, young people in Devon reflect the national picture, with a significant rise in child obesity during or after the lockdowns, especially among boys and those living in the most deprived communities. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, highlighted that in his Question this morning.
The picture is not all negative. I am immensely proud of my county and the resilience of many rural communities, much of it, I am proud to say, fostered and supported by local churches.
However, one particular concern in Devon is the impact of long Covid on the workforce. National research shows that before contracting Covid-19 and then developing long Covid, two-thirds of respondents had been working in front-line jobs such as hospitality, schools, care homes, childcare, emergency services, retail, transport and delivery. Most respondents believed that they had almost certainly, 41%, or very likely, 18%, caught Covid-19 at work, pointing to the lack of PPE and the direct contact with Covid-positive patients. As one researcher commented:
“Key Workers are overwhelmingly paying the price of workplace Covid-19 exposure with loss of health, loss of employment and loss of income.”
As we move into winter, this is really serious.
This national picture is exacerbated in rural counties such as Devon. One of the problems facing the countryside post Brexit has been the shortage of workers, both in the care sector and agriculture. Not only is there a smaller population in rural areas from which workers are drawn but, on average, they have to spend more time travelling to and from their jobs or, in some cases, between jobs. Because long Covid disproportionately impacts lower-paid women in front-line roles, this has made it more difficult to recruit suitable staff in the countryside. This shortage is now being seen in many rural businesses in Devon, especially in the hospitality sector, which are closing for the winter period due to lack of staff and higher energy bills.
In conclusion, therefore, I ask the Minister: what research is being undertaken to assist the medium and long-term effects of long Covid, specifically in rural communities?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, whom I know well and whose speech I completely concur with. Happily, mine does not completely reflect it. I also acknowledge the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in getting this debate for us to consider today.
I will particularly highlight the challenges of long Covid on mental health services, healthcare staff and children’s education and health, and therefore need to declare my interests as a registered nurse and president of the Florence Nightingale Foundation.
I note that the lack of consistency on the definition of long Covid makes it difficult to measure and analyse the emerging evidence. Despite this, the NIHR estimates that 1.8 million people in the UK—as others have said, 3% of the population—are experiencing symptoms of long Covid. Its studies published in 2021 showed that up to one in three people who have had Covid-19 report long Covid symptoms, and up to one in seven children. The scale of chronic ill health and disability after Covid-19 has been described as the next big global health challenge. I am not sure that it is the next big one; I think it is the immediate one.
According to the NIHR’s survey of 3,286 people with long Covid, 71% said it was affecting family life and 80% reported that it affected their ability to work. The Ulster University survey of 3,499 healthcare staff demonstrated that 49.3% felt overwhelmed by pressures of the pandemic, with social work and nursing the most impacted.
NHS Check, a study by King’s College London—where I must declare I have a visiting chair—looked at 18 partner NHS trusts and found high levels of distress and symptoms of anxiety in staff working in healthcare. A concerning finding was that there was a high prevalence of PTSD symptoms and self-harm. This has caused long-term absence of staff due to Covid-related sickness, resulting in people at work carrying out jobs out of their skill set and/or being overworked. It is reported that these issues have directly impacted the quality of care and waiting times and, in extreme situations, have led to unsafe practices. Dissatisfied patients have resulted in increased abuse towards healthcare workers, exacerbating their exhaustion and anxiety levels. Those on long-term sick-leave have suffered isolation and financial difficulties, intensified by the recent soaring cost of living, leading to further distress and longer absences from work, and some healthcare workers have lost their jobs due to long Covid.
The impact of staff shortages from long Covid has also led to a breach in some patients’ human rights: namely, the illegal detention of patients. Last week, the Independent reported that mental health patients were being held “unlawfully” in A&Es due to shortage of staff to undertake timely mental health assessments. I must stress that I believe that that has been to protect their safety, but none the less it is a severe problem.
The effects on our children are highlighted in Ofsted’s second report on the impact of the pandemic and school closures. It demonstrates that children have regressed in basic skills, physical fitness and learning, particularly those whose parents were unable to work flexibly—including, of course, health workers. Children were found to show increased signs of mental distress, including a rise in eating disorders and self-harm.
Social isolation and greater exposure to family conflicts have added to children’s mental ill health, leading to an increase in the number of referrals to CAMHS, which has not been matched by an increase in investment in children’s services. A large study by the NHS in 2020 found that mental health conditions among children had risen by 50% compared to three years earlier. I think that will be even higher in the next piece of work on that issue. It is sad that Baroness Sally Greengross is not here to argue for intergenerational fairness on this issue.
These academic studies have shown major organisational changes across the NHS, with substantial physical and mental health challenges for NHS staff and other care workers during the pandemic. Results also indicate the importance to support staff so that they can contribute to service recovery. Therefore, can the Minister explain the Government’s position regarding the implementation of the proposed 10-year mental health and well-being plan for NHS staff and, in particular, the investment to support staff with long Covid?
Will the Government make further contributions to NIHR for global collaborative research to increase our understanding of long Covid and its impact and, in particular, to generate evidence-based interventions that may enable the health recovery and mental resilience of staff impacted by long Covid and support them to return to work, thus ensuring their retention in healthcare practice?
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for having secured the debate, to which I am very pleased to make a short contribution. There will be many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people and their families up and down the country who will be grateful to her for having given them the opportunity to have their experiences of what we call long Covid both explored and legitimised. Many interesting points have been made in the debate. I was struck by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the economic impact, which is staggering and a point to which I will return. The House may know that there was a debate in the other place about long Covid six months ago, so it is high time that we had our own debate here today.
My first main point is that the outcome of the debate will be, I hope, that we agree on the need: for more research into all aspects of Covid, including long Covid; and to explore the link that may exist between long Covid and the recent exit from the UK workforce of so many people. I remind the House that it was the brilliance of scientific research, including research conducted in this country, that enabled the vaccines to be developed from which we have all benefited. Now we have the challenge of long Covid. One way of thinking about it is to say that it is the persistence of symptoms in those who have had, and thought that they had recovered from, Covid. It is interesting that the majority of people with long Covid are PCR-negative, which indicates microbiological recovery, although the chronic symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks. In other words, long Covid is the time lag between the microbiological recovery and the clinical recovery.
By May or June last year, some of the most commonly reported symptoms included the following: fatigue, cough, chest tightness, breathlessness, palpitations, myalgia, and a difficulty to focus. I will illustrate that with some direct evidence that I have received from long Covid sufferers. A person who fell ill with Covid in the first wave in 2020 wrote:
“I was knocked sideways by it. I have never been so ill.”
They were
“bed-bound for 2 weeks, coughing badly for 2-3 months thereafter. Feeling weak and frail.”
Now I want to introduce your Lordships to the concept of brain fog. Let me again use the words of another sufferer:
“Brain fog came on insidiously after an initial period of recovery. Unaware of it at first, but slowly it engulfed me.”
They
“had no name for what was happening … for a long time”,
and it was a
“relief when others started naming it and talking about it”.
This is where today’s debate comes in. It will be very helpful for people to know that their symptoms are being recognised. I have received a long list of some of the symptoms, which I am sure that many of your Lordships will recognise: the inability to write or concentrate; a short attention span, forgetfulness, memory loss, word lapses, sleep problems, eye problems, balance problems; a terrible sense of brain congestion, of which one person wrote that it felt
“sometimes as if my head would split”;
exhaustion, weariness, and others. Someone said:
“My vocation is gone and I am unable to write. As though a door has shut in my brain and I cannot work.”
Another mentioned:
“A desire to flee from company and crowds. I now avoid outings where possible. I am de-coupling from life.”
It is worth noting that many of those who suffered from long Covid did have vaccinations and boosters.
I understand that some people have taken private action to secure the drug ivermectin and that it had a beneficial effect in some cases, albeit for a short time. I mention that because I tabled Questions to the Minister’s department earlier this year about that drug, and I would be grateful to know what the department and Minister’s current views are about it.
This is not the debate in which to refer to the cuts in public expenditure announced by the Chancellor in another place while we have been sitting here, but of course cutting back on science research would fatally undermine research efforts. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House today that the Government will protect the £50 million that is being invested in long Covid, as set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. As I understand it—I am grateful to the Library for this information—the NIHR has published its latest themed review, entitled Researching Long Covid: Addressing a New Global Health Challenge, in which it refers to: three studies considering who gets it and why; two studies looking at the biological causes; three studies looking at the diagnosis; four studies evaluating treatments; three studies considering recovery and rehabilitation; one study looking at the impact of vaccination; and two studies looking at how health services can treat the condition and the health and economic costs of the disease.
That brings me to my second major point, which I will have to truncate. What is the link between long Covid and the people who have left the workforce? As has been referred to, the Office for National Statistics has published several articles. Time does not permit me to give all the details, but it is clear that a huge proportion of those in the age bracket of 60 to 65 are unlikely to return to work, and the pandemic has affected decisions to leave the labour market. The report published in July 2021 by the ONS listed some of the major reasons that workers cited for not returning. Research by the Health Foundation indicates that economic inactivity in the UK has increased by about 700,000 people since before the pandemic. That is an absolutely enormous number, and the cost to the UK will be very great. It seems as though we are living through a pandemic of inactivity, as it were. The Health Foundation report concludes that
“these contributing factors are exacerbating a pre-pandemic trend of the increasing prevalence of poor health as a reason for inactivity”.
I will end there. We certainly need more research, and I hope that this debate might have what I might call a catalytic effect both on the discussion of long Covid and on the reply from the Minister.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked for this debate, and I applaud her comprehensive introduction. When I asked an Oral Question on this topic on 23 May, I cited a figure of
“1.1 million sufferers of long Covid in the UK … unable properly to undertake day-to-day activities as a result of their condition.”—[Official Report, 23/5/22; col. 656.]
That ONS figure now stands at 1.6 million—the figure is in the excellent Library briefing—and a total of over 1.1 million have been suffering for more than a year, so this is a growing problem. Even though we may be over the worst of Covid as a life-threatening disease, at least for now, a significant minority of those who contract Covid continue to develop long Covid. It is a debilitating illness for the individuals concerned, and its extent represents a wider social problem that the Government need to take seriously.
Many of us know people suffering from this condition, professionally or as friends or relatives. My concern in this debate is what can be done better for those who are suffering, from their own point of view. I thank those with long Covid to whom I have talked about their situation. One friend—under 60 with no discernible underlying conditions, and living in rural Hampshire—contracted Covid in September last year. As symptoms persisted, the GP said that she would be referred to a long Covid clinic in two to three weeks, but that happened only 10 months later, with nothing happening in between. Hers is by no means an isolated case. As the Minister will appreciate, this is not just about the waiting time to get to a clinic, crucial though that is; it is also about what happens up to that point. So I ask him: what is being done to help upskill all GPs, and what can be done as soon as a patient contacts a surgery? What can be done to better signpost the support that a patient requires at an early stage? Indeed, what can be done to ensure that those who have long Covid or suspected long Covid contact a GP in the first place?
My friend tells me that, ideally, the GP should have said, “Stop work completely. I’ll fill in a sick note. Come back in four weeks and we’ll keep an eye on you”. This is with hindsight, of course. She believes that, if she had been set on the right road and been monitored from the off, she would be much further down the road to recovery. She would also have missed much less work. As it is, over a year later, she can still do at most only two days of work a week.
Her main symptom is fatigue, in line with 70% of the 1.6 million that I have cited. This is not just about not being able to climb a hill; it is about not having any energy to do anything for a period of time. Of course, many people’s stock reaction to this, sufferers and non-sufferers alike, is “Carry on regardless, try to take more exercise”—one very good reason why long Covid should be treated professionally as quickly as possible.
Additionally, addressing these concerns will avoid in toto a significant loss to the economy, as others have pointed out. The Government need to take a significant note of that. There must be faster access to long Covid clinics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said. Clearly there is still a postcode lottery about referral. Many more clinics need to be put in place across the whole of the UK, to decrease waiting times and to ensure that everyone has the same level of access, which continues to vary hugely across the country.
Fortunately, my friend now has a case manager, a qualified physiotherapist who can refer her to different services according to the symptoms displayed. We know that a multitude of symptoms are exhibited by sufferers, so there is the respiratory team, the occupational therapy team and so on. The problems do not stop there, though, in terms of delivery, because there are also difficulties in accessing those services, as has been pointed out. Can that be looked at, as well as the priorities over access and the funding involved for long Covid patients? One good thing in my friend’s case is that meetings with her case manager are through Zoom. Travelling is very difficult for long Covid patients.
Such is the demand for treatment and the slowness of NHS provision that there are now heavily subscribed private online programmes of treatment. People are desperate but there is a question over whether these services are a substitute for those services referred through the NHS as part of what, ideally, should be a complete and integrated programme of recovery. I say this as an open question.
In an informative video on YouTube, one sufferer, Gez Medinger, sums up what many sufferers experience when he says, “It takes every aspect of your life and pretty much crushes it”. The Government need to do as much as possible to support those with long Covid, as well as putting money into research to beat this condition.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton for a masterly introduction to this debate. I speak with a little trepidation because I am no authority in this area, but I recognised very quickly what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, had to say. His request to the Government about the need for a national cohort is very important indeed, and if the Government do nothing more today, I hope they will at least respond to that.
I approach this from an unusual angle. When Covid started, noble Lords may recall that every day, on the BBC, we saw photographs of the people who were dying. They were mainly old. There was a preponderance of men rather than women. A disproportionately high number came from the UK’s BAME population and 50% of those dying were overweight. My noble friend Lady Thornton knows that I have laboured on this subject for a long time. I and others noticed this. The research findings then bore out that there was a categorisation in this form—the research backed it up. The Government then decided that they had to do something about obesity and very quickly produced their 2021 strategy, as these underlying causes were substantial contributory factors.
We had higher death rates in the UK than the rest of Europe. Our numbers led the field for a period. Put me right if I am wrong, but I think we have performed particularly poorly. We did extraordinarily well with the vaccines, but the death rate was very high indeed. We are generally seen as one of the unhealthiest nations in Europe, part of which goes back to obesity, again linked with Covid. I have not read Covid-19 and Occupational Impacts, only glanced at it, but some important information there relates to the BAME community and sheds light on the problem there. However, I cannot find out whether there are any common factors on a substantial scale that can be identified within people with long Covid.
For example, I know people who have got long Covid who are overweight. They were overweight before, so they had an underlying cause and they were at risk. They continue with long Covid, yet they have a continuing problem with their weight. This is a difficult subject but we must address it honestly and straightforwardly. If there are continuing underlying factors not dissimilar from the problem in the first instance, we must acknowledge them, look at them, give support and assistance in those areas, and not run away from some of the difficulties that may be around. In this country these days, we run away so much from some of our underlying problems. It is too difficult politically and too sensitive to address them on head-on.
I am speaking marginally out of tone with the rest of the debate. I have just as much compassion, but it is important to have a frank and honest debate on this topic. I express my gratitude again to my noble friend for the opportunity to speak up and fully debate the topic before us. It is a very big one, which may be repeated elsewhere with other issues that come along later. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether we are performing badly compared with the rest of Europe—whether we are getting more cases of long Covid than elsewhere. Are we doing better or less research than elsewhere in Europe? I pick up from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that the evidence indicates that we are leading the field in the research, which is good.
Fundamentally, we must keep coming back to prevention in the first instance. Until we make our country healthier, we will not be in a position to meet all the problems that will come with climate change, new diseases and unforeseen issues. If we are healthier in the ill to come, as we face it, we stand a much better chance of doing better next time round, with fewer people left with a continuing illness than we have at the moment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for having to be virtual this week. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for this debate, with a very special “thank you”.
I am a member of the All-Party Group on Coronavirus. On several occasions we have taken evidence on long Covid. On the last occasion, three ladies gave us evidence—a doctor, a teacher, and a train driver. All would like to be working, but it was impossible. Long Covid had struck them so badly that they were unable to leave their houses and fatigue and brain fog had taken over their lives. One of the ladies said, “We are the forgotten”. I said, “No, you are not forgotten”. That is why my “thank you” to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for having this debate, is so special.
Recently, I met a doctor at a BMA dinner who is doing research on long Covid in Birmingham. I asked him how he found long Covid, and he wrote to me, stating:
“I have been reflecting on the challenges I am facing in both my roles as a clinician and researcher in long Covid. One of the biggest issues for me personally is the definition of long Covid. It is necessarily broad, given that we do not fully understand it, but it includes such a heterogenous group of patients that the diagnosis has limited use for patients. As a result, it is also very difficult to design studies to understand it better. Funding for specific research to address this would benefit the community greatly.
Pragmatically, my experience of the long Covid services has been good, though I should emphasise I only have experience with one centre, and I am fully aware that across the country services are patchy. We have been fortunate locally to have rehabilitation experts who have joined the team and made a positive contribution”.
Services are patchy across the country in respect of so many health issues. People living in rural areas should not be forgotten, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter said. The key messages from the APPG on coronavirus are that long Covid is having and will continue to have a significant impact on both the UK’s health and economy, that Covid-19 must be recognised as an occupational disease, that a compensation scheme must be put in place for key workers living with long Covid, and that a comprehensive long Covid care system must be established to tackle the significant burden that it will continue to place on the NHS.
Long Covid impacts significantly on the UK population and will continue to do so, including on the UK workforce in both public and private sectors. Many of those living with the acute health challenges presented by long Covid were initially infected as a result of work they did during the pandemic on the front line—caring for patients, educating children and continuing to provide vital transport services—yet support from employers and indeed the state is hugely variable.
The APPG has heard of long Covid’s devastating impact on children. Long Covid can have a significant impact on children’s education as a result of lost learning, and the level of support offered by schools to pupils and to parents of pupils living with long Covid is extremely variable. The APPG has heard that
“children experience a wide range of Long Covid symptoms, and that these symptoms can differ from those displayed in adults”,
yet there remains little research into treatment or specific care pathways for children. Without such research, long Covid will continue to impact the health and education of those children living with it.
There should be government guidance on long Covid across the country for GPs, employers, private and public services and the public at large. Some GP surgeries do not want to be involved, but patients only want to know where to go for help.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the six-minute limit.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
I am just about to finish. They need directions—not to feel forgotten and not worth advising. Does the Minister agree?
We need compassion at this difficult time across the country. We need to solve the mystery of why some people develop long Covid and others recover without complications, and to take any similarities into consideration.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton not just for making this debate available to us but for her having demonstrated stamina beyond the normal in the way that she has fronted for this side of the House—indeed, I think she has spoken for Members across the House—during the entire troubles that we have been through with Covid. Covid may have a long form, but those who speak about it and remind us of its importance can also have a long form, and I thank her for that. I also pay tribute to our friends in the Library for their briefing note, which is truly extraordinary and has been mined by many of us in the speeches that have been made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has drawn attention to the way that ME played out through chapters of misapprehension and wicked neglect through its course, until we got on to more certain ground. I might add dyslexia as another condition that suffered from not having adequate analysis or forensic understanding, which led to its own misapprehensions.
All that leads me to focus my intervention on the first of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s points: the need for data—the need for an adequate basis from which to draw empirical and helpful conclusions. In pressing the Government, and my noble friend is certainly not the only one who has done this, we must almost insist, if that is within the bounds of the conventions of this House, that the Government really give us an answer on that one: how do we get the evidential basis upon which we can draw reasonable conclusions? I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who is not in his place at the moment, a suggestion that concrete ways of responding were available, although they might need to be enriched and all the rest of it. It is urgent that we have that evidential base, for this is something that we must know more about scientifically.
I have a son who went down with all the symptoms that my noble friend Lord Stansgate mentioned, and was laid flat out for months. He has made a good recovery so that is a possibility, but I have to say that his family live with the possibility that it may recur. Again, that emphasises the need to understand this disease better than we do currently. I have to say—and a father would only want to do this—that in my son’s recovery he played a key role in the way that the funeral of the late Queen played out. He works for Westminster City Council, responsible for their street management. He resourced the queues and cleaned the streets once the horses had left their hallmark, and did all the things that were unseen.
However, I have another son who has not had Covid but Covid has had him. He has a small business that collapsed the day that lockdown started, and he is reinventing himself all the time. Long Covid, in an economic and personal way, is not related to the disease in the bloodstream or whatever it is but is playing itself out in as insidious a way, and the economic outcomes have to be borne in mind. Meanwhile the marriage of my daughter—who lives in France—did not manage to survive lockdown. Once again, those things happened as a result of Covid, and there is an ongoing realisation that we have to cope and deal with it as best we can. Long Covid in its clinical phase of operation and understanding, together with its outcomes in personal and economic life, all need to be held together.
One thing is certain in my mind as I draw my remarks to a close. The noble Baroness began by saying that Covid is still with us, and the worry is that it might recur when we thought we had cracked it. On a lighter note, I have to say that I went down with it once. The symptoms were mild but it was on my significant birthday when I could not finish my salmon steak or my glass of wine. So I have a real grudge against Covid, and I hope that will be taken into consideration.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for bringing forward this incredibly important debate and for her outstanding introduction to it.
Long Covid is undoubtedly a serious challenge for the NHS and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, for the economy, and a devastation for about 1.5 million people across the country. My principal reason for speaking in this debate is a concern that, for reasons that I simply do not understand, the chronic fatigue syndrome that too often results from the Covid virus is not linked in doctors’ minds, or indeed in many other minds, to the chronic fatigue syndrome that can be triggered by other viruses, and from which more than 1.5 million people suffer and have suffered for many years.
The principal symptom of chronic fatigue syndrome, as we know, whether it is triggered by Covid or by some of the virus, is extreme physical and mental tiredness that does not go away with rest or sleep. Sufferers find it difficult to carry out everyday tasks and activities and, as others have mentioned, too often they cannot work. This applies to the 1.5 million or more people with chronic fatigue who have had it for however long—for years, in many cases—and to those with chronic fatigue from Covid. They are exactly the same.
Other symptoms, as other noble Lords have mentioned, may or may not include muscle and joint pain, headaches, flu-like symptoms or feeling dizzy or sick. Covid-triggered chronic fatigue may also include a loss of taste and smell, and that is a slightly misleading piece of the jigsaw. In the main, chronic fatigue triggered by Covid and chronic fatigue triggered by another virus are indistinguishable other than by this rather weird issue of the loss of taste and smell. Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that these two chronic fatigues that I have mentioned are in any way distinct, other than in this little piece, which I think is just a separate element of the consequences of Covid?
As someone who will have asthma for the rest of my life as a result of Covid, I also experienced a complete loss of taste and smell for several months after Covid. I am not just being self-indulgent; there is a point to bringing this in. It seems clear that the loss of taste and smell following Covid should be regarded as separate from chronic fatigue and separate from asthma or any other post-Covid illness. The fact that post-Covid chronic fatigue sufferers may lose their taste and smell should not suggest that it is in any way different from other post-viral chronic fatigue syndromes. They are surely identical, and medical treatment and research should focus on all types of chronic fatigue syndrome, including Covid related CFS. We know there has been a lot of money devoted to research because of long Covid; it is crazy for that money and research not to include other causes of chronic fatigue. It just cannot be right.
I very strongly welcome the focus of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on the alarming economic consequences of long Covid. Again, the economic consequences of chronic fatigue, whether triggered by Covid or any other virus, are eye-wateringly large. Urgent attention, both medical and in research, should be given to the prevention and treatment of chronic fatigue, however it is triggered.
I raise this issue in part because in the past chronic fatigue sufferers have experienced the most unpleasant stigma from doctors and others who tended to take the view that chronic fatigue was in no sense a physical illness, just something in the mind. Clearly, post-Covid chronic fatigue syndrome is acknowledged to be a physical response to Covid with a deeply unpleasant set of symptoms. It would be very helpful if the same understanding were applied to CFS triggered by other viruses or events. I will be grateful if the Minister can respond to this point, and to the important economic concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his summing up.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend on, and thanked her for, introducing this debate. I am sure that she is very pleased with the expertise we have had in the House today, which shows the kinds of contributions we can make to furthering issues of this kind. I am not an expert on health matters in any way, but it has been striking how significant the big picture of the problems facing everyone is, and we should all be aware of the difficulties that are being created.
The estimates we have heard about are of 2 million cases or more, because it is self-reporting. It means that this is a very significant problem both for individuals who are affected but also for society and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was saying, for the economy as a whole. Long Covid affects the individual, but it also affects their family, friends, employment, society as a whole and the economy, as we have heard. The cases we have heard about show the extent and range of problems that are involved. I was struck by the BBC today talking about a young girl in the north-east who had missed virtually two years of education because of long Covid, which obviously affected the whole of her family.
We have heard today about key workers in particular who have had their lives turned upside down. It has been difficult for them as individuals and for their families, but it is also a great loss for all of us if they are not in the National Health Service participating as key workers. The fact that many are not able to return to work is a very significant problem for us all. I listened to what was said about medical research. I think we were all very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, and I hope the Minster can accept that that is a particular way forward.
Regarding the impact on the economy and society, I want to pick up what my noble friend Lady Thornton said about the need for employers to have better guidance on how they should react. I would like to know more about what is happening here, because we are suffering very significant skills shortages in many areas, which is holding back our economic progress. The fact that individuals vary in how they are affected by long Covid needs to be more widely understood. Somebody may be okay one day but not the next, which is not easy for employers to deal with. The need for greater flexibility on employment is important, but we also need co-ordination across government.
Turning to the impact on individuals, the situation seems to be extremely varied. Early on, there was probably a lack of understanding by medics and others, but many people who suffer from long Covid, as was being said on other illnesses, find that doctors and medics generally vary in their understanding. Some people feel that it is very difficult to be taken seriously for problems of this kind. The idea of a post-Covid assessment service is clearly very welcome, but it is concerning to hear that over a third of the people who need that service must wait for several months—and that is not months since they first got Covid but months since they first realised that there was a longer-term problem. So we need to get a grip on that difficulty.
The right reverend Prelate referred to issues in his area, where only 17% of people were getting access. The issue of a postcode lottery in any area of health is a problem—and it certainly is here—as is the difficulty that sometimes arises with statutory sick pay. Not all people are entitled to it, and people tend to go back to work because they have no option and need the money, which can lead to longer-term problems in the end. So we need some better co-ordination on the part of government to ensure that everybody is covered.
I will raise two particular points with the Minister. The first is the fact that Covid is not over, and I worry about complacency settling in on this issue. Mention was made that, in the early days, it was in the media all the time, but now it is hardly ever mentioned. People are not coming forward for vaccinations as much as they should. We do not know what the next variant will be or when it will hit us, and the Government must be prepared to step up their game to make sure that we do not become too complacent.
Secondly, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer was chair of the Health Select Committee and, if the Minister looks up the tweets and statements made by Jeremy Hunt when he had that role, he will find many quotes that the department can use to get leverage for extra funding in this area. So I recommend that he does his homework on the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; his department might find that very useful.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, chair of Whittington Health NHS Trust and a member of the North Central London Integrated Care Board, as well as other interests stated on the register. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, a wonderful fellow non-executive director at Whittington Health, for securing this debate. I too am very grateful to the Library, which has been hugely helpful, and I am enormously grateful to all other speakers, because most have said most of what I was going to say.
I have a very specific point. At UCLH, we a run a well-known and much-admired long Covid service, which is led by the remarkable Melissa Heightman, who is also a national specialty adviser for NHS England and the co-chief investigator for the STIMULATE-ICP study, the largest long Covid trial to date. We know that the service is desperately needed; we have heard that all around the House. Those who run this particular service are working night and day; it does not have the resources to do what is needed, to the extent that those who run it are begging for bits of resource from elsewhere, mostly for people. So short is the service of staff that they recently asked UCLH Charity to fund an extra consultant for two years, which it has agreed to. I am well aware, as we all are, that today is the day of the Autumn Statement and that times are tough, but it is really serious when an NHS trust with a £1 billion turnover has to ask its charity to support an on-the-ground service led by the national lead, even for a limited period of time—particularly for a service designed to help other NHS staff across London.
Worse still, as other noble Lords have said, some 10% to 14% of reported cases are NHS staff. Although we all know that, it is not generally known among the population—but it is not really surprising, given the higher exposure to the virus that they all had. What a difference getting them well and back to work would make to the cash-strapped NHS and to the challenge over staff numbers. We have real trouble in recruiting and, as others have said, we have people leaving the service.
Lord Bethell (Con)
Can I personally endorse what the noble Baroness just said, in particular her testimony on Melissa Heightman and the team at UCLH? I had extensive dealings with them as a Minister, and their work is absolutely first class. I am heartbroken to hear that they are having to reach to charity for financial support.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, and I shall make sure that Melissa knows about that.
Meanwhile, we have all the figures that everybody has cited, and the ONS has reported that long Covid has adversely affected the day-to-day activities of 1.6 million people—that is absolutely huge, and other noble Lords have mentioned that fact. The NHS has tried to help with that ongoing issue but, unfortunately, not enough. I want to go through that, because I think that it is relevant.
In October 2020, NHS England announced a five-point plan to support long Covid patients; it commissioned NICE to develop new guidance and established designated long Covid clinics to provide
“joined up care for physical and mental health”.
It also created the NHS long Covid task force to guide the NHS’s national approach on long Covid, and it funded NIHR research on long Covid better to understand the condition. In July 2021, NHS England published its long Covid plan for 2021-22, which included investing £70 million to expand long Covid services and £30 million in the rollout of an enhanced service for general practice, to support patients in primary care. But when NHS England published its updated plan in July this year, the previously enhanced service funding was not continued, so primary care no longer receives any ring-fenced funding for this condition—yet, as we know, it affects nearly 2 million people.
The problem is both insufficient resources to do all the work that is needed and insufficient forward planning to enable those services that do exist to build up capacity, engage in research, recruit, train, educate, and care for patients, including, importantly, the large number of NHS staff who appear to have been affected. We have a major health problem here that is likely to run for many years. Treatment is uneven across the country and research, which will need a lot of funding, is in its early days. This is an additional burden on an already very stretched NHS, both with patients with long Covid and with the large numbers of staff who have it.
What we really need is a properly NHSE-commissioned service to be put in place now, with secure funding for the next several years, even in these cash-strapped times. It feels like a hand-to-mouth, temporarily funded arrangement, so it is really hard to build a resilient service for the longer term. Can the Minister assure this House that such long-term commissioning will now be put in place, given the recent evidence of the numbers of people away from work with long Covid, the huge proportion of NHS staff affected, making other NHS backlog issues worse, the general impact on the UK economy, which others have mentioned, and of course the sheer suffering that long Covid is causing?
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I offer warm congratulations to my noble friend on securing this debate and on the way in which she introduced it. She and other noble Lords will know that, by the time you get to this stage of a debate, there is not much new to say. However, I have been listening very carefully, and there is no doubt that there is a great deal of agreement about the fact that long Covid provides a new challenge for an already much-challenged health sector. In listening to the excellent speeches that have been made, I see three main problems about long Covid. There is the issue of recognition and awareness, the issue of treatment, and the issue of its impact.
The first problem seems to be knowing whether you have long Covid or not. The same could be said of Covid itself. When I tested positive for Covid last year, no one was more surprised than I; I thought I had a little head cold, and was astonished to find when I was tested here at your Lordships’ House that I was positive. I know many people have had the same experience. This very uncertainty of knowing whether you have long Covid adds to the anxiety of sufferers. Just this morning, I was speaking to a young man in his 30s who had such awful brain fog, as he called it, after getting long Covid, that he thought that he had senile dementia coming on. I am glad to say that he is now recovering.
This also applies to treatment. There seems to be no agreed accepted programme of treatment for long Covid sufferers and availability of treatment is patchy in the extreme. In many areas, it seems to depend on the chance of finding a sympathetic doctor or nurse. If you have had symptoms for more than four weeks that is supposed to be an indicator, but it is not always accepted that these are the same symptoms and that they are always present, as we have heard many noble Lords mention. There does not seem to be any agreement about that and we are all reminded of the experience of those with ME, which noble Baronesses have brought to our attention. Many people suffered for many years with what was called “yuppie flu”, and it was seen as the last resort of malingers, causing much distress to sufferers.
That brings me to the impact of long Covid. Much has been said about its effect on the labour and employment market. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been mentioned by many. It said that
“long COVID shows some persistent labour market effects, with impacts being felt at least three months after infection”—
I emphasise “at least”. I remind your Lordships that we must consider these possible effects on the ability to work in the light of the terrible workforce problems that many noble Lords have mentioned, particularly in the health and social care sector. There are nearly 170,000 vacancies in social care alone already, and so many people are burned out and leaving the workforce. If long Covid further affects these shortages, as seems likely, we must be fearful of the ability of the NHS and social care to provide even the minimum care which citizens have a right to expect. As others have said, the need for further research and for action as a result of research already commissioned is urgent.
I must draw noble Lords’ attention to the particular problems faced by unpaid carers in this regard. We all know that many carers have been extremely careful with the possibility of catching Covid and have been shielding for much longer than the general population so that they do not pass it on to the person they care for. From a benefits perspective, people with a new illness, such as long Covid, who are of state pension age, must have evidenced health needs for six months before they can even claim attendance allowance. The cost of being impaired by long Covid will not be offset for this group or for their carer. As one carer said: “My husband may not be able to return to work due to long Covid, so the loss of half the monthly income, coupled with the rise of everything from fuel to heating costs and a new baby, will be devastating for us as a household”. One carer who themselves had long Covid said: “I am a carer who has long Covid and I am on a long waiting list to get help. I have been told that I will most likely have to wait for nine or 10 months before my initial appointment. I asked for my situation as a carer to be taken into consideration but I was told this was not considered as a circumstance that would merit any special consideration.” This is not acceptable.
There is no doubt that long Covid is having a negative impact on our nation, especially on the most vulnerable. We must take it seriously. We must give support in the benefits system, in practical support and in long-term policy around how this is going to affect us in the future. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are committed to many of the things that have been called for today—better diagnosis, better collection of data, more consistent messaging and, above all, an understanding of the wide-ranging impact of long Covid on the health, both physical and mental, of our whole nation.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on securing this important debate. She and I have spent most of the last 30 months in the parliamentary trenches of emergency Covid legislation, Statements and Questions, along with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and, more recently, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, does not know how lucky he is to have missed those times.
The speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, eloquently set out the issues. I thank the organisations, including the Library, that have sent briefings. I also thank everyone who has spoken so far in the debate; there have been many powerful contributions from all around the House. Despite the worry of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that there was nothing left to say, she certainly said many things, including different things, and it is a pleasure to follow her.
I start by taking us back 100 years. The excellent book Pale Rider by Laura Spinney—which both the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, have heard me quote repeatedly—shows evidence of excess deaths throughout the late-1920s and 1930s, after everyone thought the Spanish flu epidemic was over. But no one made the connection; all they knew was that there was excess death from cardiac and respiratory disease over a decade. Now, we understand more, of course. I have a key question for the Minister. It is already evident to me that parts of the NHS and many parts of government want to put Covid behind them. Will he undertake to make sure that we do not repeat history and stop learning from Covid, because it is not yet over, as others have said?
The authoritative and expert contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was really helpful. The scientific world is now publishing papers that show the consequences of Covid after that initial infection period. One in 22 will have a major cardiac event within 12 months of having caught Covid and one in five will get long Covid—as we have heard, that is over 2 million people to date. Covid damages the brain. A friend of mine in his 70s and his wife thought that he had very bad rapid onset dementia; last week, he discovered after an MRI scan that it was not dementia at all, but many micro clots in his brain, which were definitely affecting his capacity to think, speak and do physical things. That will be with him now for the rest of his life. Covid also damages the vascular system and the immune system. Variants mean that herd immunity and even one course of vaccines are no long-term solution.
Among the studies published recently is one from Washington University in St Louis. One American commentator, a scientist, says:
“We don’t know everything about long COVID yet, but what we do know is downright terrifying. But you’d never know it if you don’t seek out that information yourself … This pandemic is a mass killing AND a mass disabling event. Long COVID is going to be a defining issue of our times.”
The Americans have a reference system. The US veterans’ association provides a longitudinal study for Covid, and an article in Nature, published in May, showed that, after breakthrough SARS-Covid infection, there is considerable evidence of further and long-term problems. And the more you get Covid, the more likely you are to get long Covid or other serious consequences.
The right reverend Prelate referred to health inequalities in rural areas, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to health inequalities for people catching Covid. Interestingly, this was also a major problem in the Spanish flu pandemic 100 years ago. We have that long tail—100 years—but have learned nothing.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market made a strong and impassioned argument for not falling into the trap of assuming that long Covid is about weakness or psychology. There are still no blood tests to identify long Covid or ME. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the vital connection with other post-viral conditions. Researchers this week are seeking volunteers with long Covid to take part in a study that looks at psychological factors, full stop. After all the evidence that we have heard this morning, that is breathtaking.
If noble Lords have not seen it already, Rowland Manthorpe, the excellent technology correspondent of Sky News, has a long article on the Sky website about his two-year journey with long Covid. It is very moving, including people saying that he just needed to start doing things gently and build up—not the answer. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke of the difficulties in accessing appropriate support with GPs. At this point, the questions others have asked about definitive research become really important, but it is not just research; it is ensuring that the training for all our front-line healthcare and clinical staff understands that and they do not stick by the old thoughts.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, spoke about the high number of deaths in the UK. This was thought to be principally due to late lockdown in the first big wave, if we look at excess deaths, and comorbidities were key. It was not just about obesity, but obesity was among them. Significantly, people with high blood pressure, a history of heart problems or asthma also faced high death rates.
Long Covid definitely affects children too. My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, who cannot be in her place today, has spoken often in your Lordships House about the devastating effect that long Covid can have on children, from familial experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to a young girl from the north-east and her two-year experience of long Covid. Yesterday, Hayden from Elvington in Kent, a previously fit and healthy 15 year-old, told the BBC how his life completely changed after he caught Covid in December 2020. He used to swim and play judo, but now has to use a wheelchair and is largely bed-ridden with, among other things, extreme and severe fatigue.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, referred to ivermectin. That is a longer debate for another day, but I strongly recommend he reads the one-pager that he can find online where a scientist explains why it should not be used in humans at all—in vitro, possibly; possibly even in cows; but not in humans.
The employment issues are vital. The right reverend Prelate referred to employment stats in Devon and the All-Party Group on Coronavirus also found statistics. The big issues that seemed to affect employees were that Covid-19 was often first contracted in the workplace, especially, as we heard, in professions deemed key and essential workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said, 10% of those are in healthcare, so it is really shocking that the NHS is now sacking staff with long Covid and when those staff say, “But I caught it at work”, the NHS says, “You cannot prove it, end of case”. That happened to a friend of mine who was a senior midwife and it is appalling that she is now lost to the profession.
The all-party group has received many examples of healthcare professionals who were forced to work with Covid-19-positive patients with inadequate PPE. We have also heard of employers forcing them to work in unsafe conditions and offering no support for return to work, and a growing trend that those with long Covid feel physically and mentally unable to challenge dismissals or wrong PIP allocations. That is a real problem, because it means they are not getting benefits to which they are entitled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, set out the medical problems. I want to raise another issue. A number of Education Secretaries over the last 30 months have continued not to take account of Covid and long Covid in schools. That is why we have so many children with long Covid, so why are we not following the example of America, where all children are eligible for the vaccine? A colleague of mine, Councillor Oliver Patrick in Somerset, has devised a very cheap ventilator for children’s classrooms. You need only one and it costs about £100 to create, but schools are not getting support to do that and the word is certainly not getting around. So, when we have the next wave, expected in January and February, schools will once again act as a vector for Covid, and arising out of that will be long Covid.
I finish by asking the Minister some questions, some of which have already been asked. We need guidelines for employers, in both the private and public sectors, about how to manage employees who have had Covid. Will the Government undertake a compensation scheme, available to all front-line key workers who have Covid? Will the Minister look at the care system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, outlined? Will the Government look at measuring, reporting and monitoring the number of people, including children, with long Covid in the UK? Finally, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Taylor, said, long Covid is a key part of Covid. Until the long Covid tail is over, Covid is not over. Will the Minister undertake to make sure that the Government act by that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this important debate and all noble Lords across the Chamber for their thoughtful and considered contributions. I will try to do their points justice in my response; where I do not, I promise to follow up in writing.
The pandemic has tested us all in many ways, as I am sure noble Lords agree. Governments and healthcare systems around the world are all facing the same set of challenges in tackling long Covid. Although I am to some extent still “the new guy”, I am under no illusions about how these add to the existing challenges facing the NHS, some of which have already been debated in the Chamber. We have done much already, but I shall not pretend that we have got it all right. We must do more, as was well put by my former colleague, my noble friend Lord Bethell, and many others.
Today’s debate has been wide-ranging, and I will do my best to respond to the issues raised. I will set out what the Government are doing on the serious challenges of long Covid, such as NHS healthcare, research, employment and social support. However, with the presence in this House of so many of the key players in the fight against Covid—my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lords, Lord Darzi and Lord Stevens—it is only right that we first recognise the critical role they all played and the support they gave in the unprecedented global challenge we faced. The country acted decisively and, I think we broadly agree, got the big calls right. We were the first country to administer an approved vaccine and the first to administer a bivalent vaccine for the original strain and omicron, and we had the fastest booster programme across Europe. I pay tribute to my predecessor and all other colleagues for the tireless work they did in that area.
As mentioned by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bethell, we all agree that prevention is better than cure. It is the best defence. Not only have vaccines been proven to stop serious illness, but—I accept, more anecdotally—they are thought to reduce the risk of long Covid. As we all know, we have administered 139 million vaccine doses, 40 million boosters and a world-class programme. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, rather than being one of the worst in Europe, in terms of excess deaths, which is the internationally recognised definition, we are one of the best. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Bethell that we need to bring what we have done on Covid prevention into our research on long Covid prevention.
The point was very well made by many noble Lords that it is not just about research into Covid but, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Meacher, said, linking how long Covid might connect with ME, chronic fatigue syndrome and other similar areas. As we know, it is a complex area. Various speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned how complex this is. We need to make sure that our research digs into all these areas. Some 220 different symptoms are included, I believe. The research we have done, such as the REACT study from Imperial, in which the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, has been so involved, and the UCL research on brain fog, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and to which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, is connected through her UCH connections, is vital. There are honest debates around this; there is also research into weight management and its impact on long Covid, as brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We all agree that there must be an honest debate to really understand the drivers behind it. We need to be clear about that.
I can commit that the £50 million for research is protected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said during her excellent history lesson—I will look up Pale Rider—there are many lessons to learn from Spanish flu. I agree that Covid is not over, unfortunately, so she has from me a commitment to that research.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the levels of investment, the £50 million we are investing in research is, I believe, second only to the USA, so we are very much among the leaders. This is in addition to the £108 million spent on Covid research to date. To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we are fully committed to international research, and making sure it is a two-way process in which we share our findings and commit our data.
Regarding data, some excellent points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Griffiths. Noble Lords have heard me say before that I am a bit of a data anorak, so I totally understand its value in this space. I will make sure that noble Lords have a detailed answer on this, but it is something I very much support and believe we need to be doing.
I say in response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Meacher, who spoke about trying to understand how long Covid might interact with, or have similarities to, ME and chronic fatigue, that funding is still available. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter spoke about the rural impact, and I would say there is scope there. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, asked if we need to do more. Funds are still available within that £50 million, but it is something we believe in, and as we know from short Covid—if that is the right term for it—our research was vital and we remain committed to playing a leading role on the world stage.
We all know that research is only of any use or has any point if it actually creates treatments we can use within the NHS. As many speakers have said, only if these are substituted into services will they really help. The UK was one of the first countries to recognise and respond to long Covid, and we set up the national long covid commission guidance with new care pathways. As part of that, as mentioned by many speakers, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, access to information and education for doctors is key. The Royal College of GPs and the HEE have put out information, but to judge from some of the examples given today, it has clearly not been disseminated widely enough.
I appreciate the tips from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about getting extra funding from the Chancellor. As many of us might have seen, extra funding was announced in the other House earlier, but I appreciate the tips and, believe me, I will be using them. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that the £224 million we have already invested is a commitment, and it has helped set to up 100 specialist treatment centres, many in rural areas. I had a chance to look up the figures, and I think I counted seven in Devon, but I will confirm that, because it is not just an inner-city issue but a whole-country issue. There is also the question of the impact on young people and children, a point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Masham. Fourteen of those 100 centres specialise in treating children and are therefore helping to deal with this issue.
The point that these measures are only any good if we are making people aware of them all was very well made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am proud of what we have managed to achieve on the Your COVID Recovery web app: we have had 12 million visits from people looking at advice on how they can recover. However, I am by no means complacent about the need to make sure that there is advice everywhere.
I will get back to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on ivermectin, as I need to get some detailed advice on that. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about people feeling the need to go to private centres and often try unproven medicines, generally I would caution against that, as I am sure many of us would. While this is a complex area and we are still learning about it, I advise people to stick to the proven methods we are trying to adopt through our own NICE guidelines and our own centres. That is what we are trying to do right now through the NHS, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others mentioned, this is not a one-and-done matter. This is a long-run thing, so these services will need to evolve over time, and we will need to keep up.
As we all know, looking at what we are doing health-wise is only part of the picture. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, started the discussion on this point very well, and a number of noble Lords contributed to it, speaking about the whole impact on employment, work and schools, and—as was well said by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—on a personal basis. The impact of long Covid is much wider than just on health, and I very much recognise its impact on employment and work. As many noble Lords will know, I was the lead NED of the Department for Work and Pensions before I came into this role, so I am very aware of the 2.5 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, towards which we now know that long Covid is contributing. Action in this area to help those people is vital not only to their health but to the health of the economy. I know that this is a priority of colleagues at the DWP, and it is part of the £1.3 billion investment to support the long-term sick into work.
I totally accept the point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy, Lady Watkins, Lady Masham, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, about the impact of long Covid on our own NHS staff. We need to make sure that we are supporting them through this. I have done a bit of research on whether long Covid can be defined as an occupational disease, as was mentioned. This is a complex area, because, as we mentioned before, there are 220 different symptoms connected with it. However, the DWP is being advised by the independent Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on this. It has recently published a paper prescribing five complications following Covid which should be considered in awarding personal independence payments. I am sure this will be an evolving picture, but my DWP colleagues are looking at it.
Of course, this issue is much wider than the NHS; it should be embraced by all employers. I am very pleased that I have an opportunity to speak at the CBI conference shortly about health in the workplace. This is something that I plan to bring up then, because it is important that all our employers recognise that health is everyone’s business, as was said in a consultation document that recently went out, to which we will respond shortly. Clearly, the role of employers is key to all that.
Personally, I would like to see the sort of approach taken in Japan, in which employers take on a big role in the health of their workforce and very much look at prevention. As my noble friend Lord Bethell said, it should not just be our health service looking at prevention methods; we need to be giving people over 50 health MoTs, and looking at cardiovascular impacts as well as how employers can help in that space.
I hope I have answered many of the points raised today. I commit to cover any I have missed in a detailed response. I finish by again thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and all the speakers. I found this a very informative debate. We can all say that we have much more to learn about long Covid and that we continue to be guided by the science. But the virus has definitely not gone away and, unfortunately, as many noble Lords mentioned, we will have to live with Covid and long Covid for a long time to come. We must continue to be proactive to prevent through our vaccine programmes, to treat through NHS services, to research to continually improve understanding, and to support people to get back into work. I thank noble Lords.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for outing me, because I did not declare my interest as a non-executive director of the Whittington; she is my boss there. I will just use these last few minutes to say that this was an excellent debate and I hope it has the kind of impact that most speakers said they would like. I will just mention a few of them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for a wonderful contribution. There was a time when he and I felt that we saw more of each other than we did of our partners. I should include the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in that comment.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Meacher, were correct to make the links they did and to raise issues such as there being no diagnostic blood tests for ME and CFS, even now. My noble friend Lady Donaghy was also completely right about the need to raise awareness.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, is always concise and I am always grateful for the medical exposition he gives, which I would never dare attempt. I was hoping he would do so and indeed he did. I wish I had thought of the words “national protocol”, and I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to look at what he said about how data could be used. I do not wish to bring the two together, because I am sure they know each other, but I thought that his offer was very pertinent.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, brought to our attention the problems in rural areas and with mental health. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate because he and other noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, talked about the personal experiences of long Covid of people they had spoken to. It is very important that we give voice to those experiences in this Chamber. Many noble Lords did that and I had hoped they would, because I knew I would not be able to in my opening remarks.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Griffiths for his extremely kind words and for reminding us, as he often does, about the human costs of the pandemic—not just the medical costs. My noble friend Lady Taylor talked about the significance of long Covid for society, and I was very struck by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who again reminded me of a book that I still have to read. I promise her that I will now read it because, as she says, history has things to teach us and we need to hear those words—and the Minister does too.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley quite rightly talked about carers and unpaid carers. I thank her too for her expert round-up.
I thought that the Minister did the best he could—I have been in his place; there are so many experts in this House, and as a Minister you can only do your best with them—but I think the noble Lord needs to go through this debate. I asked about eight or nine specific questions, some of which he answered and some of which he did not. For example, he did not address the question of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. It is very important for our NHS staff to know the answer. I should be grateful if the Minister and his officials could go through this debate, pick out those questions and write to everybody who took part in this debate, putting the answers in the Library, so that we can see and take this forward as we know we will need to do.
National Security Bill
Thursday 17th November 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 November 2022 - large print - (16 Nov 2022)
National Women’s Sports
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to celebrate the success of national women’s sports, particularly in team sports.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is no secret as to why I have brought this issue forward. We have had a long run of great sporting success. For someone who would sooner cheer for Scotland, unfortunately this has been mainly by English teams. We have all seen our national women’s sides enjoying a tremendous run of success in team games that were originally thought to be male dominated.
The Euros were an odd one—for me, a hardened rugby union player, football suddenly became enjoyable to watch. This was not only because there was a successful team to relate to, but also for the sheer joy the players seemed to have in competing and in that success. Who would have thought that a song, brought out in 1969 by Neil Diamond, would be belted out with such great gusto and with which everybody would join in? “Sweet Caroline” has become an anthem for British sport. It happened because a group of female players enjoyed and enlivened their success. It engaged the vast majority of us in a way we did not expect.
This success has been backed up—though this is a little bitter-sweet—by the England rugby union team, which had 30 consecutive victories at international level. I do not know how many records that broke, but it was magnificent. If we cannot celebrate this degree of success with better grace and embrace it a little more than we have done so far, we are going to be in trouble.
The whole structure of sport encourages people to take part and enjoy it. I am asking the Government what we are doing to get the best social, health and emotional health benefits from it. How are we going to do this?
What did we do to allow that success to be seen? First, we made sure that it was all on free-to-air television. If either of those tournaments had been tucked away in even the most brightly lit corner of a streaming service, the vast majority of the population would not have seen them. This had to be something that the BBC and ITV particularly took on and said, “Here it is.”
It is also about the warm-up to it, not just the events. Women’s football has been available for a long time, mainly on the BBC—we have seen it. If you did not see it, it does not really matter, and that applies to any form of public entertainment or engagement that goes on. For the first time, rugby union having the women’s competition in stand-alone tournaments when you can watch it has been massively beneficial to getting people engaged in it.
Why does this matter? If you are getting the women and girls to think that sporting activity is normal, you can encourage more of them to take part in it. It is not a totally closed book because they are out there now, but most of the clichés and stereotypes which have stood against female participation are thus addressed. You are going through and making sure that people can get out and get involved. How do you access this and encourage people to do it? You start at school, I hope by having a smorgasbord of opportunities to try. You encourage children to get out there and enjoy the sports that are going on. However, the thing about school is that you leave it. Generally speaking, people drop out of sport post 16, 18 or 21, when they leave this controlled environment where to an extent it is made easier for you or you are encouraged—indeed, forced—to take part in sport.
What do we do to break that down? You encourage children to try sports, hopefully ones that are culturally available to them. For instance, if you are talking about codes of rugby, I suggest that St Helens rugby league might be your first port of call—this might be the first opportunity to celebrate that other bunch of Lionesses who got into the semi-final of that particular tournament. You have to make sure that it is culturally available for your background and the groups that you are going out to, and then you must encourage people to go from the club at the school to the small amateur clubs—the big, professional, international, shiny stuff does not really matter that much as regards the benefit to society if you do not get people taking part in these games on a voluntary amateur basis.
In this country, government is very lucky that we have a tradition of sports clubs which founded themselves, fund themselves and look after themselves. Sport does a lot. Government helps but primarily, sport helps itself. That is why they are there and why, for instance, local government finds itself assisting football clubs with their grounds, not providing all of them as they do in most of Europe. The Government should be encouraging that. One of the easy ways of doing this is to make sure that there is an effective link between school and club activity. You get better coaching and the idea that you can carry on afterwards. I hope that this will be encouraged.
For women and girls, this might mean expanding the traditional bill of fare. We have just spoken about two sports which are not encapsulated in the traditional diet of netball and hockey, although they should both be represented. Indeed, both those sports have had their degree of success but possibly, if we televise them more we might do them a bit of a favour. However, maybe that is taking the debate a bit too far down one avenue.
How are we going to encourage this, making sure that that offer to take on these things in later life is done? We have to do more on that. School sport partnerships took a step in that direction—I do not know whether they were all-encompassing and fully working that through, because in most cases they got stopped when they had only just started to get going. Can the Minister give us an idea of what they are going to do?
I return to one of the things which government should probably do more of, which is to celebrate better team sports generally. We are in an odd position here, in that we have handed out honours and awards like toffees for people who have had modest successes. It was great back in those heady days when England won the Ashes for the first time, but they should have beaten Australia before that. Everybody got a gong—or whatever the correct term is in cricket; others will correct me later—at the end of it, even if they sat on the bench. Then England win the Rugby World Cup. Great: everybody gets a gong. The England women’s team were amateurs in 2014. The definition of amateurs is that you pay to play, you are not paid; you give up time and effort and you put money in. When they won the World Cup—and they are much more consistent about getting to finals, and so on, than the men—two of them got medals. Has the person who devised that for a team game never actually watched a team game, let alone participated in one? Do not goalkeepers and defenders count in football, or the people who do the hard work to win the ball in rugby, or is it only the glamour boys? I speak as someone who was definitely in the grunt brigade.
This is what the Government could easily do. If it upsets some weird table of achievement or the giving out of awards, give one medal to the entire team and give people a copy of it. That is a way out. The example I give of where that has been done is the equestrian teams for eventing. There used to be one medal; now they give them each one, but it still counts as one medal. That is something that the Government could do easily.
I know the Government had a lot on their plate this summer, but they did not have an official reception for the Lionesses: come on. There was enough of the Government left to celebrate that better. Why did that not happen? You could probably do it now and nobody would lose any Brownie points for having a party late, as opposed to not having it.
As the clock beats me, I thank everybody for taking part and hope that the Government will be able to answer my questions and the other thoughtful ones that I know are coming.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, both on obtaining the debate and on his erudite and detailed analysis of the circumstances of women’s team sports over recent years. I intend, as is natural for me—as with the noble Lord—to concentrate on rugby union and leave football to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and others.
I start with the observation that, tomorrow evening, my rugby club, the Kings Cross Steelers, will be celebrating on the Terrace their victory in the worldwide gay tournament, the Bingham Cup. In itself, that victory is not relevant; what is relevant is that we will have three members of the England women’s rugby team present: Shaunagh Brown, Ellie Kildunne and Sadia Kebaya. We are honoured, because their success in recent weeks has caught the attention of the nation. I say to Sarah Hunter, our captain, on behalf of the whole team, not only have you caught our attention but you have gained our respect. We all know how difficult it is to accept defeat—and such a close defeat, at that—but you have gained our complete respect.
Why? When I told my members that we were going to have three members of the England women’s team present, the reaction was a communal, “Wow, that’s great!”. For the first time ever, because of television coverage and the like, the rugby union team has attracted our attention in the same way that the football team has done. Why has it attracted our attention? Let us be honest, with the level of professionalism that we now have—which is rising and can go on rising—the skill levels in team sports have risen. Therefore, nobody dismisses them now and says that it does not matter, or that they are just out there playing rugby union, football, cricket, rugby league or whatever; there is a skill level now available which everybody can and should appreciate.
Along with a number of other Members of both this House and the other place, I had the pleasure of pressing the Government for funding for the women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025. I was pleased that the Government granted that assistance. In Auckland, a week ago, the stadium was full to 40,000—its maximum capacity. The RFU has set a target of filling Twickenham, with a capacity of well over 80,000, for the final in 2025. It is a great target and it should be achieved. It reflects the growing interest in women’s sport that is being displayed across the nations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, although we can admire the achievement and the increased professionalisation and skills, we must recognise that it is not a total success story. I served on a committee with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others. We looked at the statistics in relation to activity levels. Among women, those levels are on average 10% below male activity levels, and markedly lower among certain socioeconomic groups and ethnic communities. Those are the people who need to be attracted by the performance of women in team sports to generate an interest on a day-to-day basis at a lower level in sport generally, because role models are not the only solution to achieving participation.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this debate, and share his pleasure in the recent successes. But I want to emphasise that we should always bear in mind that national success of this kind is built on the grass-roots activities that underpin them and which are so important and so common throughout the country every weekend. That is very important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, my particular interest is in football. I make no apologies for that, though as a good northerner, I should say that women in rugby league, while not in this Saturday’s final, deserve some credit for giving that game a much higher profile. They need recognition for what they have achieved over the last few weeks, especially given that they are not even fully professional.
Football has seen remarkable changes recently in the public perception of the women’s game. It is remarkable that attendances at women’s football matches have gone through the roof—over 50,000 on some occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that free-to-view television has been an important factor. However, this weekend, a large number of people will pay to watch women’s football on television. That is partly because there is no FA Premier League, but nevertheless it is a significant breakthrough. Another breakthrough is the number of women commentators, not just on women’s football but on all football. We have made some successes there.
As I said, it is the grass roots that have built up to this success. I must mention AFC Bolton Ladies, who are self-funding but have had real difficulties post Covid. The Government must consider these small clubs in the light of what has been happening there. I make special mention of a group of women football players, the pioneering Manchester Corinthians, of Fog Lane Park, not least because they were founded by a scout from Bolton Wanderers in 1949. They made breakthroughs, and were the first women’s team to represent England at an international level and beat the Germans—just to mention that. The team even played in front of 50,000 people in Benfica—and this was when women’s football was banned. It is incredible that it was not until 1971 that women’s football was recognised as even existing. It has been an uphill struggle, and a lot of that struggle was conducted at that very low level. I hope that Manchester Corinthians get the recognition that they want for their history.
But all is not well and easy. A report by sports scientists out just yesterday highlights the lack of football kit actually designed for women, and how women therefore have more injuries of certain kinds, because there has not been that recognition. While we are celebrating success, I will celebrate in particular the success of the Lionesses: undefeated in 26 games, winning the European Championship and providing that role model. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a reception would be very nice, but I think the Lionesses would rather have the legacy of the Government making sure that football is available for every girl and woman to play, with the kind of support necessary to make that success continue into the future.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Addington on obtaining this debate and opening it in such a thoughtful and constructive manner. In the short time allocated, I will concentrate my remarks on one specific area: the benefits of involving women in custody and those on the cusp of the criminal justice system in sport.
When I became Minister of State for Justice in the coalition Government in 2010, and later chair of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales between 2014 and 2017, I instinctively assumed, from my own experience, that sport would play an important part in diverting young people from the criminal justice system or helping in rehabilitation once they were within it. The advice I was initially given was that there was no evidence that participation in sport could play such a constructive role. I spent my seven years at the MoJ actively searching for such proof.
Fortunately, over those years, individuals and organisations helped change attitudes to the importance of sport in our criminal justice system, not just for boys but for girls and women too. There was the ground-breaking research by Professor Rosie Meek, of Royal Holloway, University of London, in her 2018 report for the Ministry of Justice, which reviewed sport in youth and adult prisons. In her foreword to that report, Professor Meek said:
“Evidence confirms that sport can play a huge role within our Criminal Justice System. As well as being a way to bring together disparate groups, develop communication skills and learn life lessons, it also has the advantage of being something many people are passionate about.”
I was also encouraged by James Mapstone, co-founder and chief executive of the Alliance of Sport in Criminal Justice, and was given great encouragement by a member of my Youth Justice Board, now the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I look forward to her remarks later in this debate. Protocol prevents me referring to her as my noble friend, but perhaps I may refer to her as my partner in crime. She is now a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System, along with Clive Efford MP, with James Mapstone providing the secretariat and Rosie Meek as an adviser. I am confident that we can keep up the pressure for greater recognition of sport within the CJS.
Beyond the need for change in the criminal justice system, it is also clear that much still needs to be done to provide access to facilities and the right equipment, and in the recruitment of coaches. I was interested in the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just made about equipment. Forty years ago, as an MP, I remember being approached by a young female constituent who told me that access to sports bras was a deterrent to girls playing sport. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, a report earlier this week called for more comfortable and practical sports bras, shorts and hijabs, as well as boots and other equipment specifically designed for the needs of women and girls and their bodies. As she said, there is still work to be done at that level.
Although time has prevented me paying full tribute to the way that the skills of, and opportunities for, women in sport have exploded into the public consciousness, I do so now and hope that we will enjoy success in more sports and at all levels in the years ahead; that we will celebrate, as the Motion asks us, the success of our women’s team; and that we will put forward practical measures to underpin that success in future.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, like every other noble Lord, I express my pride in both the Lionesses and England’s women, who put in such a gutsy performance in the world championship, losing by such a small margin against New Zealand.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in his excellent opening remarks, during their teenage years girls drop out of sport at three times the rate of boys, yet girls need load-bearing exercise even more than boys during those years. It is the best time to build bone density, helping to protect us from osteoporosis later in life. The push from our sports councils to get more females into exercising and keep us there is not just a social move towards some sort of sporting equality. It is important for our health and well-being, including the impact on the NHS budget.
Football is the most popular team sport in the UK, with millions of people playing regularly. It is a “gender-affected activity”, in the words of the Equality Act, meaning that mixed-sex play would not be fair for females because males are stronger and faster, even when they are the same size. From the age of 12, boys and girls play separately to give females fair and safe play. Even in primary schools, it is common to have girls’ teams and boys’ teams. A 10 year-old girl will tell you that boys will not pass to girls and that she prefers playing with other girls because boys are too rough. The effects of male puberty are clear: more muscle, bigger heart and lung capacity, denser bones, stiffer tendons and the rest.
In the school playground or in the park, you will see boys, not girls, having an impromptu football game. The result is that for every female playing football in the UK, there are nine males. That is almost a whole team. If football is to become a girls’ game too, it is obvious that girls and young women need their own teams. They also need role models. After the success of the England women, girls can see they can be female and sporty, and that can be life-changing.
Here is the problem. Since 2015 the Football Association has had a policy that males may play in women’s teams if they lower their testosterone or, in some cases, even if they do not. Lowering testosterone will slow them down a little but does not reverse male puberty and it certainly does not remove male performance advantage in sport. An average male runs 10% faster than an average female. In a dash to the ball, he needs to be only half a metre in front every time and she will never get a touch. Up to the age of 18, even that requirement is absent. The FA’s current policy says that under-18s may play in the team of “their reassigned/ affirmed gender”, so although talented girls can be forced to drop out of boys’ teams after the age of 11, boys who say they are “girls inside” get to join a girls’ team.
This year the England Universities women’s football squad has a trans-identifying male player, a 30-something six-foot-tall post-pubertal male who now identifies as a woman, in goal, where size advantage really counts. If you had to play them, would you not want a trans-identifying male player in your women’s team too, in order to level the playing field a little?
Last autumn the UK’s Sports Council Equality Group published new guidance on transgender inclusion in sport. It said that the inclusion of trans-identifying males in female sport could not be balanced with fairness, and in many cases safety, for females. This summer English and Welsh rugby reinstated female-only teams, though Scottish Rugby has yet to follow, but football is not there yet.
Women’s football was huge in the early 20th century but was outlawed by the FA in 1921 and remained so for 50 years. Now, once again, women’s football has a chance. Let us hope the FA will not hand it to the boys this time.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and also the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for today’s debate. I would like to draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests; I have many connections in sport.
There is indeed a lot to celebrate. Ten years ago, the London Olympics and Paralympics became known as the “women’s games” because of the success of British athletes. This summer I have loved the Euros, the rugby union and rugby league; it has been incredible. Women’s sport is on the rise, but we are not there yet. It still feels like we are at the beginning of a journey. We have to be careful about the next steps we take and what we might consider giving away, and we must not be complacent about the future.
The organisation Women in Sport has said that the successes are built on shaky foundations, with “stubborn inequalities”, stereotypes and practical barriers, which may be different at each stage of life, disrupting many women’s and girls’ experiences of sport. Over the years many misogynistic men have told me that women do not play sport because apparently, “they” do not like it. Turning it around, “they” are hopefully starting to realise that we do like playing sport and we are good at it, but there is still so much more we have to do.
I was part of a conversation recently in which someone tried to tell me that you know women’s sport has made it when top coaches—they meant men—decide they want to coach women. Let me be clear that I am not against men coaching women; three out of four of my coaches were men. I know incredible men in sport. But the inference that we are only good at sport when men decide we are, is just a little bit irritating. There is not enough time to go into that particular debate.
We have to keep looking and checking. Where are the women coaches, administrators and volunteers, and what opportunities are we going give women athletes? What platform do we give them? Sport matters and women must be part of the discussion about the future. In the US, Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination. I have long believed that we need that in the UK, perhaps now more than ever, in order not just to keep investing in success but to make sure that we have the right opportunities.
Also in the US, the NCAA rules have recently changed, benefiting some women, who have been able to sell their name, image and likeness for great financial reward. It is probably seen at the moment as a non-traditional form of endorsement. It does give some power to women, but not all women can do this or want to.
Women are catching up in sport. Women have been allowed to compete in the Olympic marathon only since 1984, and in the pole vault, since 2000. There are plenty more other sports I could mention. We have an opportunity now not just to celebrate success but to turn the tide of inactivity. So, what do we need to do? We have to stop sexualising the uniforms women are required to wear, or at least give them a choice. We need to listen to what women want in sport and to tackle the inequalities in sponsorship and media coverage, and at the grassroots.
Women in Sport says that
“4 in 10 girls feel women’s sport is still viewed as of lower value than men’s sport and that girls are not expected to be good at sport”.
More than one-third of parents of girls, 37%, think that girls are not encouraged to do sport and physical activity as much as boys are. You have to see it to believe it, and this summer we have seen the success of women’s sport in spades. It has been incredible, and there is a lot to celebrate. Now, we have to do more to widen the opportunities and ensure we have future success.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this short debate and on his excellent speech. Many national women’s teams in the United Kingdom have cause to celebrate a fine year. To name a few, gold medals have been won at the Commonwealth Games by the England women’s hockey team and by the GB women’s rowing crews at the European championships. In rugby union, the Red Roses were unlucky to lose narrowly against the All Blacks. English women were also runners-up in the cricket world cup. Above all, of course, we celebrate the magnificent victory of the Lionesses. That was great for women’s sport. It brought in a large audience, has raised the sport’s profile and has attracted many new players.
It is important that we celebrate, and that government now build on the enthusiasm generated to promote support for girls and women equally with boys and men. Champions attract newcomers. From the mass of young participants come future champions. With them, we will have future successes. It must and can be a virtuous circle. Government must nurture young sportswomen.
It is good for society if we all exercise and participate, with greater or less success, in sports. Teams are valuable for the less-gifted participants. Many children love sport, if encouraged and given the chance. Many just want to be in a team, even the third or fourth team—and that applies, as I know, to boys and girls alike. Team sports promote loyalty and friendship; to be a “team player” is a compliment we give people in life. Society wins from more involvement in sport.
However, too many girls do not play sport in their teenage years. The reasons are complex, but puberty and changing body shapes cause difficulties. There is embarrassment in changing rooms, so, wherever possible, there must single-sex changing facilities. They should not have to share facilities with boys or, later, with men. Nor should they be deterred by faster and stronger trans women in direct competition. It is simply not fair for a taller, well-built natal male with artificially lowered testosterone levels to play contact sports with girls or women. It is not just unfair; it carries increased risk of serious injury. It is not a level playing field. Inclusivity must not mean being unfair to females, who, after all, are half our population. Being kind to trans women does not justify invading the dignity of the female sex or putting them at a physical disadvantage; sensitivity to female needs and fairness to females must come first.
Sport for women should result in happy and confident persons. If we drive proper sport for females forward, we shall have more champions to cheer. So let us celebrate, build on the success we have had and drive women’s team sports to still greater heights. Let the Government now show that they believe that women and girls are the equal of men.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I too congratulate my friend the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this excellent debate and thank him for highlighting and celebrating women’s team sports. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind words, for raising a very important issue, for all the work he has done in promoting sport and physical activity at the YJB and for his continued support with the APPG.
As others have mentioned, there has been huge progress in the last few years in bringing women’s sport to national attention, most notably through the fantastic achievement of the Lionesses in winning the Euros earlier this year. We have also seen, in recent days and weeks, the GB tennis team make the semi-final of the Billie Jean King Cup for the first time in 41 years, and the England women’s team make it all the way to the final of the Rugby World Cup. A wide variety of women’s team sports are clearly on the rise and getting more exposure in the media—and what fantastic role models they are.
We must maintain this focus on women’s sport and build upon the progress and success we have seen. It is vital that we continue to strive for greater equality and opportunity in sport. We have an amazing opportunity to help inspire the next generation of sportswomen by teaching girls in schools the right skills and strategies from an early age. We know that more work remains to be done on this agenda as, according to a Women in Sport report published earlier this year, girls are not only “less physically active generally” than boys but are
“also far less likely to take part in team sports”.
While 55% of girls play team sports, the figure is 71% for boys. Schools have an important role to play along the journey in achieving national successes. We know that many schools are delivering excellent sporting facilities, but I am afraid that this is not true of all schools, be it down to a lack of workforce, facilities or equipment.
We all know the knock-on effects of what better physical health can have on mental health and helping our children with their learning in school. The Association of Physical Education states:
“The difference that high quality Physical Education, School Sport & Physical Activity make to the lives of young people is quite remarkable.”
That includes improved behaviour and attitudes and building confidence, social skills, personal development and much more.
With all the successes of national women’s sports and the increased demand in recent years, perhaps we should consider modifying and adapting the curriculum so that we can build on the success. We must always listen to the voices of girls; they are not a homogenous group—they have different attitudes towards sports, and we must recognise this to help inspire more girls to get active. It should, of course, not come at the expense of individual sports and other activities, which is why we need to provide a broad and balanced offer.
Sport and physical activity should be a must-have, not a nice-to-have. One way to embed more focus on sport and physical activity, including encouraging more girls to play sport and giving them more opportunity to play team sports, would be to classify PE as a core subject. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this would give PE a higher priority and focus in schools?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his comments about clubs, and the pathway between schools and clubs. Sport does not stop at the school gate. We must ensure that we support and strengthen the relationship between schools and local clubs so that we can help more girls on their journey to becoming elite sportswomen. I have no doubt that on the back of the successes that we have seen across a wide variety of women’s sports on the national stage in recent years, there will be an increased demand from more girls to play more sports in schools. We have an opportunity here to unleash the full potential of women in sport in this country, and we must seize it.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
First, of course, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Addington on securing this important debate.
I would like to tell noble Lords a story about my first serious engagement with women in sport. As the newly elected MP for Solihull, I was invited to see a women’s rugby match at a local constituency club called Camp Hill. Warmly wrapped up, I stood on the try line nearest the bar, ready to cheer the Camp Hill Chargers on, not really expecting to find women’s rugby a very serious endeavour. How wrong I was. I can tell noble Lords that it was not handbags. Indeed, to prevent a try being scored, a Charger threw herself on top of the ball so no opposition player could get to it, winded herself, took off her scrum cap, had a little sick, put the cap back on and ran back on to the pitch. I began to appreciate that women’s sport is, to women, an incredibly serious matter.
That game was in 2005, a time when women’s sport was grossly undervalued, both in the attention it received in the media and the financial support that it was given. But these days, the popularity of women’s sport is huge, and is growing at different rates right across the board. Only days ago, the Red Roses reached the final of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand—who, as we know, won, playing on home turf. Britain’s Rugby Union chief executive, Bill Sweeney, agreed that the nail-biting finish
“was probably more entertaining than the men’s game”.
But success attracts investment, and this rugby final attracted the largest crowds ever for the women’s game.
Is the real win the benefits it brings to those who take part? Many minority groups have been mentioned by noble Lords this afternoon for inclusion. My noble friend Lord McNally mentioned sports participation and the criminal justice Bill. It is about inclusion of all kinds. Several noble Lords have also taken the opportunity to raise the trans issue, an important issue on which we should perhaps have a further debate on another day.
My noble friend Lord Addington queried the value of what the Government are doing to celebrate the success of these fantastic teams. Why did the Lionesses not get invited to a formal reception at No. 10? While I appreciate that there have been one or two other small things on the Government’s plate of late, it is a simple thing to recognise our women’s success. It does not cost a lot. It creates good publicity. It improves public morale, which we could certainly do with at the moment, and shows that, even though we can mess up the economy in six days, we are good at something. That should be recognised and celebrated.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on bringing this debate to us today. He has a habit of enriching the Chamber with his knowledge of sport, particularly rugby, and I congratulate him on all that he does to promote that.
It is right that we celebrate the achievements of our national women’s sporting legends, but we need to do much more than that—we should celebrate those who have led the way in opening up sport generally so that women, so long excluded, can feel welcome and able to play competitive sports on equal terms with their male counterparts. We have, as all speakers acknowledge, much to celebrate and even more to look forward to, but it is worth just reminding ourselves of the journey women in sport have been on. I will tell a story which, I hope, illustrates the point.
In 2000, when I was a Minister in the Home Office, I was travelling home late in a ministerial car and had a new and rather sparky temporary driver. As you do, we fell into a conversation about football, and within a few minutes my driver explained that she played for one of the top women’s clubs and had played for Doncaster Belles, Arsenal Ladies and Croydon Women in recent seasons. She also told me she was England’s centre forward. I remarked, “There’s clearly something wrong here, I should be driving you”. Imagine the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, being driven home by Harry Kane—well, that is how it felt.
We then embarked on a conversation in which it was explained to me just how hard it was for women footballers to perform at the highest level. To train and get time off for games they had to plead with their employers, who were often wholly unsympathetic and opposed to helping the women’s game. Senior women footballers of that era were truly pioneers to whom the current generation of England and Women’s Super League players are grateful. Many were just paid “boot money”.
Much has changed in the world of football for the better for women players, but there remains much more to do in the marketing of the game, clubs giving greater exposure to the women’s game in their stadia, pay levels in the professional leagues, the transfer market and the treatment of the game in the media, in particular. Schools football, its governance and the encouragement of the grass roots, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, explained to us, all need work before we can get anywhere near parity with the men’s game. I remind noble Lords today that the highest transfer fee for a woman footballer is £350,000, paid back in September this year. Women, despite their incredible drawing power, as illustrated by the Euros, are still undervalued.
Women are powering ahead as winners in UK sport in football, cricket, rugby, rugby league, athletics, tennis, gymnastics, cycling, curling, rowing and a whole range of Olympic and Paralympic sports and much more. Our sports bodies and organisations are doing much good work in opening up opportunities and making sport more inclusive. For the long term, we need to do more to ensure we protect our sporting heritage with secured funding and investment in school facilities, playing fields and open spaces—much missed in the last few years. We need to challenge unconscious bias and ensure that the culture surrounding women in sport is right and appropriate by ensuring that we raise standards in the world of sports administration.
There is much to celebrate but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, much more to do. Let us learn from our wins—and our defeats—celebrate today our women’s achievements and ensure that future generations build on that legacy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for securing this important debate on the success of women’s sport. The timing is, as noble Lords noted, particularly apt with so much success occurring across women’s sport, not least the success of England’s Red Roses reaching the final at the women’s Rugby World Cup last weekend—and coming so tantalisingly close to winning the tournament—and the Lionesses at this summer’s Euros. I am very happy to be responding to this Question for Short Debate at such an exciting time, and I assure noble Lords that His Majesty’s Government are keen to build on this success and momentum to create a lasting legacy for women’s sport.
The Government are fully committed to supporting women’s sport at every opportunity, pushing for greater participation, employment, commercial opportunities, visibility—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington accentuated—and opportunities at school. It is important that we take the time to recognise and celebrate success, which is why today’s debate is so important as well as so timely.
This summer we witnessed a major success in women’s sport the Lionesses beat the German team at Wembley to lift the UEFA European championship trophy. This inspirational tournament was staged in July across England, from Rotherham and Wigan to Southampton and Brighton. As noble Lords have noted, the final at Wembley was attended by a record crowd of over 87,000 people. That was not only a new record for a women’s international game in Europe but broke new ground for a women’s or men’s Euros final tournament game. The tournament also became the most watched women’s Euros ever, with a global cumulative live viewership of 365 million people across television, out-of-home viewing and streaming. This massive figure is more than double the number that watched the last UEFA European Women’s Championship in the Netherlands in 2017.
The tournament was truly a ground-breaking moment for the sport and has dramatically boosted interest in the women’s game, bringing it to the forefront of people’s minds. The event held for the Lionesses in Trafalgar Square the day after the final was a momentous occasion and saw 7,000 fans celebrate with their heroes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the former Prime Minister Liz Truss met the Lionesses at their training ground to congratulate them and were very proud to support the event in Trafalgar Square. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said, it is also important that we focus on the long-term legacy by way of celebration. To commemorate their already incredible achievement, we are working with the Football Foundation and the FA to name sites after the players in towns and cities that shaped their careers. We hope that that will inspire many generations of more players.
We will also continue to invest in grass-roots sport to bring on the next generation of Lionesses. We know how valuable physical education at school is: it gives pupils an opportunity to excel, to be active and to lead healthy lives. My noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington talked about the importance for bone density and preventing diseases such as osteoporosis. That is why we are actively working with the Department for Education to understand the barriers that prevent the ambition of two hours of PE a week being achieved. We will also continue to work with the Department for Education to ensure that girls have equal access to sports.
There is more work for us to do to identify and address the different barriers to participation that exist for young people; we have heard about some of those again today. We will continue to adopt a more targeted approach as part of our new sport strategy. Alongside this, the Department for Education is working on updating the School Sport and Activity Action Plan, which will set out steps to improve PE teaching in primary schools and to help schools make better use of their sport facilities.
On facilities, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst spoke about the importance of single-sex changing facilities. The Government are committed to maintaining the safeguards that allow organisations to provide single-sex services and we do not plan to announce any changes to the law.
Aside from the Women’s Euros, there are a number of other recent examples of success in women’s sport. Over the last week, we have seen the England Red Roses reach the final of this year’s women’s Rugby World Cup, as well as the other Lionesses—as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, put it—reach the semi-final of the Rugby League World Cup. The Great Britain team reached the semi-finals of the Billie Jean King Cup for the first time—as my noble friend Lady Sater said—in 41 years. Great Britain’s women also won three medals at the recent Gymnastics World Championships in Liverpool. Jessica Gadirova claimed an historic floor gold medal for Great Britain on the final day and sealed Great Britain’s first ever women’s all-round World Gymnastics Championship medal with bronze in Liverpool. This year’s Commonwealth Games also highlighted the success of women’s sport with Eilish McColgan’s outstanding performance in the 10,000 metres, to give just one example. Some 173,000 spectators attended the T20 women’s cricket at Edgbaston, a record for women’s cricket.
It goes without saying that Emma Radacanu’s win at the US Open in 2021 truly inspired the nation as well. A peak audience of 9.2 million tuned into the match on Channel 4, including 48% of 16 to 34 year-olds. The UK’s honours system can provide a way of recognising stellar sporting achievement and moments of national celebration. Examples of this include the MBEs awarded to the GB women’s hockey team who won gold at the Rio Olympic Games in 2016 and the damehood awarded to Dame Laura Kenny as a result of her becoming the most successful female cyclist in Olympic history following her performance at the Tokyo Games in 2020.
Lord Addington (LD)
The fact is that we have given out honours to every member in a team. If you are giving out only two, the only team you are ever going to honour is beach volleyball. Can we do something about it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I take the point the noble Lord raises. Of course, the honours system is independent of government, but his point will be well heard and, I am sure, fed back to those who sit on the independent committees.
All those sportswomen, whether honoured yet or not, are inspiring the next generation to follow their dreams. We are looking forward to this momentum being maintained and built on with the rugby league World Cup final this weekend, the ICC women’s T20 World Cup in South Africa, the FIFA women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, the netball World Cup in South Africa and the Solheim Cup in Spain. I am sure all noble Lords will want to send our best wishes to the mixed England team who are in the finals of the wheelchair rugby league World Cup tomorrow.
As noble Lords can see, there is much to celebrate in women’s sport, but it is not enough that we celebrate these successes; we must continue our hard work in ensuring that they continue for decades to come. We are doing this by investing £230 million between 2021 and 2025 to improve grass-roots facilities across the UK. In addition, after Emma Radacanu’s spectacular win, we put just under £22 million into tennis court facilities. We will also look to continue our world-leading reputation for hosting major and mega sporting events and bringing all those special moments, like the Lionesses’ victory, to the United Kingdom. Major events make people feel good in a way unlike others and it is right that we should all have the opportunity to witness at first hand the successes of our brilliant athletes, men and women.
With this in mind, we must continue to build our pipeline of sporting events so that we can inspire more people across the country to watch, participate in or volunteer in sport, putting emphasis on the need for events to consider their social impact and legacy at the early bidding stage, to maximise the benefits after conclusion. It is worth highlighting in that regard that we successfully won the bid to host the women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025 in May this year, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hayward for securing the financial commitment from the Government for that and pass on, via him, my congratulations to the Kings Cross Steelers for their victory in the Bingham Cup. Hosting the women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025 and delivering the legacy programme will generate transformational social impacts across rugby fans and more widely, including in the towns and cities which play host, and the legacy programme will look to focus on access to rugby for women and girls across the country. The 2026 ICC women’s T20 World Cup was announced as being awarded to England and Wales in July this year, another important opportunity that will further boost the ECB’s strategy to make cricket a gender-balanced sport.
The UK has also won the bid to host the International Working Group on Women and Sport from this year until 2026, another great opportunity not only to share the fantastic work we are doing but to learn from other countries. There is no doubt that the visibility of women’s sport is continuing to grow, and this was boosted earlier this year when we added the FIFA women’s World Cup and the UEFA Women’s European Championships to the listed events regime, meaning both tournaments will remain available for free-to-air television broadcasters and to the biggest audiences.
We want to continue to build on recent successes, such as the Women’s Euros and the good work already being done to encourage more women and girls to participate in sport and physical activity. We need to look ahead and be prepared to take advantage of opportunities and find ways to overcome challenges, such as have been outlined in today’s debate. We need to keep talking about issues relating to women in sport, asking questions and pushing ourselves to do more, so that women can continue to be in the driving seat of our national sporting success and not just of the Government Car Service. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for today’s debate and to all noble Lords who participated in it.
Housing Market
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
That this House takes note of the multiple problems affecting all tenures in the housing market in England; and the case for a coherent strategy to encompass the social, economic, and environmental aspects of housing and construction.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there has been no shortage of reports on housing of all tenures over the past 10 years. There is a general consensus that our housing market is not fit for purpose. We are not building enough new homes; most houses that are built are unaffordable except to those on above average earnings; young people find it impossible to get on to the housing ladder; we have a growing elderly population in homes not adapted to suit their needs; and more and more people are being forced into the private rented sector.
The House of Lords Built Environment Committee addressed many of these problems in its 2021 report and stressed the need to improve housing supply, saying
“too many people are living in expensive, unsuitable, poor quality homes.”
I am sure that all these issues and more will be raised in this debate. I will focus most of my contribution on social and supported homes, but I start with some very basic facts.
Looking at affordability, the latest ONS figures show that the average UK house price was £296,000 in August 2022, up 14.3% over the previous year in England. Prices in England have gone up by 76% since 2012. Despite regional differences, all areas have experienced increased prices. Average house prices in London, despite it having the lowest annual house price growth rate, remain the most expensive of any region in the UK. The ONS also estimates that full-time employees can typically expect to spend around 9.1 times their workplace-based annual earnings on purchasing a home in England, compared to 3.5 times in 1997. The number of new social rented homes has fallen by over 80% since 2010. The Government committed in their 2019 manifesto to build 300,000 new homes annually by the mid-2020s. I hope the Minister will tell the House what plans are in place to deliver on those numbers, given the stark facts I have listed.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy of June 2017, in which 72 people lost their lives in a high-rise fire in west London, focused political attention on social housing and the relationship between tenants and landlords. The Government’s response has been painfully slow. Although they have begun to make changes, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said in a recent debate, there is a need for significant investment in new social housing and a comprehensive housing strategy.
We currently face a grave affordable housing crisis which continues to worsen, with 4.2 million people currently in need of social housing in England. Understanding the scale and types of housing need across the country is essential for planning effective policy responses and informing the debate around the need for new homes. People in Housing Need, a report published by the National Housing Federation last December, found that half a million more families are in need of social housing than are recorded on official housing waiting lists. Two million children in England—one in every five—are living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes. Some 1.3 million of these children are in need of social housing, as this is the only suitable and affordable type of home for their families.
Need for social housing has risen in all parts of the country, yet the supply of social rented housing has fallen, as I have said, by 85% since 2010-11, with the number of social rent homes available for letting each year also falling since 2014-15. We are living through a severe crisis of housing supply and affordability, which is increasing housing vulnerability. Long-term investment in social housing would provide people with suitable homes that they can afford and support the Government’s commitment to level up disadvantaged communities across the country. Social housing brings down the housing benefit bill, supports better health and well-being outcomes and reduces reliance on temporary accommodation.
Last year, housing associations built more than 38,000 new homes. Building these homes directly added £2.1 billion to the national economy, supporting more than 36,000 jobs. Housing associations in England currently provide 2.8 million homes for 6 million people, housing 11% of the population. The lower rents they charge save tenants £9 billion annually, making significant savings for the Treasury by bringing down the housing benefit bill. However, current inflationary pressures are having a significant impact on housing associations’ ability to deliver new developments. According to data commissioned from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, material costs for repairs and maintenance have increased by 14% and it is 12.3% more expensive to build new homes than it was last year.
Planning reforms included in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill would replace the Section 106 agreements with a new infrastructure levy. This would have significant implications for the delivery of new affordable housing. Although Section 106 is not perfect, it delivers significant numbers of affordable homes; currently around 50% of all new affordable housing is delivered in this way. As it stands in the Bill, the infrastructure levy would enable local authorities to divert developer contributions away from affordable housing and towards other unspecified forms of infrastructure. Around two-thirds of Section 106 proceeds currently go towards affordable housing, so this would represent a dramatic tilt away from affordable housing delivery when demand for it is increasing all over the country. Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that their new infrastructure levy does not result in a net loss of affordable and social housing delivered via the planning system?
The current energy and cost of living crisis urgently solidifies the importance of energy-efficient homes for the future. England’s homes produce more carbon emissions every year than are produced by all the country’s cars. Much of the country is living in draughty homes that are not fit for purpose, which not only has an impact on the environment and the future climate but leaves many unable to afford to heat their homes. It is imperative that we decarbonise all homes in England, to reach the national net-zero targets by 2050. The social housing sector is the best place for the Government to start. The quantity and variety of homes within the sector mean that there will be more opportunities to deliver change at scale and provide the market mechanisms required to build up supply chains.
It is vital that the energy efficiencies of homes are greatly improved. Over 60% of social homes are certified EPC C or above, but other tenures average just under 40%. An immediate commitment to long-term retrofit funding will do wonders to move people away from gas and prevent residents moving into fuel poverty. Will the Minister protect the existing social housing decarbonisation fund? Can she tell the House when the Government will release the remainder of the £3.8 billion investment up to 2030?
The horrific tragedy at Grenfell Tower has shown that more needs to be done to ensure that tenants are listened to by their landlords when they talk about issues related to quality and safety. Currently, 23% of privately rented homes are non-decent, rising to 29% of homes privately rented by people receiving housing support. Some 16% of owner-occupied homes and 12% of social housing homes are currently non-decent. The recent appalling case in Lancashire reinforces this point.
Social housing landlords have been working to encourage a culture of transparency. Some 207 housing associations have signed up to the Together with Tenants charter, which has developed relationships of mutual trust and respect in over 2 million homes. The Social Housing (Regulation) Bill is a welcome step to empowering residents through stronger consumer regulations. Does the Minister agree that any measures brought forward must be meaningful to residents but also proportional to the capacity and resources available for housing providers of all sizes?
I now move on to supported housing. Good-quality supported housing transforms lives. It gives people choice and provides tailored, person-centred support that is vital to their resilience, health and well-being. Residents with physical and mental health needs benefit from specialist homes and services, and live independent, healthy lives. Supported housing can be a lifeline for older people and those with long-term care and support needs, including learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. This vital housing resource is facing a number of acute funding pressures which represent a serious threat to its long-term future. Against a backdrop of reduction in commissioning, the current inflationary pressures are crippling supported housing services, with increases in energy costs, costs of repairs, maintenance, building safety upgrades, legal and insurance costs and the costs of cleaning materials. The sector is also experiencing significant issues with recruitment and retention of staff, largely due to the low levels of pay providers are currently able to offer.
The cost of providing supported housing schemes is much higher than in other tenures. Operating margins for supported and sheltered housing schemes are tight and are on average 8% lower than social housing lettings overall. These margins have become only tighter as costs have risen across the sector. For example, one small supported housing provider I know of is currently operating on a very thin margin of 0.9%. One medium-sized provider recently saw bills for its gas and electricity increase by 100% from last year to this year, from £1 million to £2 million, adding that if it had to go out to tender at this point, the bill would come to £5 million. Some housing associations are considering pulling out of supported housing provision altogether. Given the unique funding pressures facing this vital part of the sector, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to improve funding certainty for supported housing providers?
The Government have produced a number of policies to address some of the issues I have outlined, but they have made little or no progress on the underpinning problem: we are not building enough homes, and we are not remediating enough of the existing homes which form the vast bulk of the housing market.
In conclusion, it is clear that we need a joined-up, long-term, outcomes-based strategy for housing people on lower incomes. Reform in the sector is often piecemeal and disjointed, as illustrated by the fact that we have had five different Housing Ministers in the past year and 14 different Ministers since 2010. Affordable housing is a key driver of economic growth. Managing and maintaining housing associations’ existing homes directly adds £11 billion to the national economy annually. Housing associations are an essential part of the housing market. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is vital that they are able to continue this contribution and deliver much more.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on securing this debate and on her introduction to it. It is strange how rarely we discuss the housing crisis in this country, since I believe it is the root of most of our social problems and many of our economic ones. I have tried to raise it from time to time and have found that there has been a tendency to ignore the issue.
I once made a speech in the House of Commons which was reported in the local newspaper with the headline, “MP says cure for housing crisis is to build more houses”. I have often complained about the inaccuracy of headlines relating to speeches I have given, but I have to say that this was spot on. That was exactly what I said, and what I want to say today: the cure to the housing crisis is building more homes. I thought this was uncontentious, but the headline sparked controversy in the columns of the St Albans Observer, with people writing in to say, “How can our MP say anything so stupid as to argue that the cure to the housing crisis is building more houses? Everybody knows that it is about simply keeping house prices down, because they are artificially high”—no, they are high because there are not enough houses. It is not that the shortage is caused by the houses being expensive.
Others said that the cause of the problem was mortgage interest rates or deposits. No—however much we fiddle around and subsidise or regulate mortgage interest rates or deposits, that does not create a single extra home for anyone. We cannot by changing the price of a bottle get a quart into a pint pot. We have to build more homes.
Others said that there are plenty of affordable homes in the north of England, the regions or the nations of the United Kingdom. Even if that is true, in most of our regions the price of houses relative to incomes in those areas is still exceptionally high compared to what it was historically. Even if they had a point, who is going to force people to move to the north, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales? When I gently suggested to people in my old constituency that perhaps they were volunteering to move themselves, they were shocked. That was another vote lost.
We have to face these arguments and ask ourselves why we have such high house prices in this country and at this time, especially given that the rate of births is below the rate of deaths. We are not creating more households domestically to create this demand for housing. Until recently, the main driver of demand for housing was that households were becoming smaller. As people left home earlier or lived longer after their children had left home, so that there were only two instead of four in the household, or after their partner had died, so that there was only one instead of two, average household size was coming down. This was also aggravated by the sad break-up of families through divorce or separation. That used to mean we had to add 0.5% to the housing stock every year to cope with smaller households.
That has come to an end. Young people are now unable to leave home and are leaving later. In 1999, 2.4 million adults aged between 20 and 34 lived at home with their parents. By 2019, 3.5 million people in that age group lived at home with their parents. So what is the reason?
The main reason, which I suspect no one else in this debate will mention, is not migration into the south of England or London from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is often the reason given, but in the last two or three decades there has been a net outflow from London and south-east England to the rest of the UK. The inflow is from abroad. We have seen mass immigration into this country on a scale never before seen in our history. We know that the official figures from the last decade understate the numbers coming here. We found, when we asked European residents to register, that there were 2 million more of them than we knew about. Over the last decade, the official figures show a net increase to our population of 2 million from those coming to settle here from abroad.
That is equivalent to our having to build cities the size of Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Carlisle, Oxford, Exeter, Portsmouth and Southampton, every decade, just to keep up with the net inflow from abroad. They are predominantly young people of childbearing age, so they soon have families. That is a great joy for them, but it means that the demand for housing increases. I am talking about legal migration into this country, not the boat people, whose numbers are very small compared to the scale of legal migration into this country.
We have to be honest about this and recognise that we have a simple choice. Either we continue treating this country as if it was like Canada, Australia or America, with large open spaces to populate, or, if we allow a continued net inflow of 200,000 or 300,000 into this country, we have to build extra houses on top of the demand of the domestic population that is already here. We can strive to reduce the inflow, but we will still have to build a lot of houses and there will still be a lot of objections to that housebuilding. I do not mind which side of the debate people take, as long as they are honest about it. If they say, “We want to see mass immigration into this country and we are prepared to build all those extra properties every year—the equivalent of all those cities every decade”, that is fair enough, but they may oppose that.
In my constituency, I invariably found that the Lib Dems both criticised me when I raised the issue of immigration and opposed every building project in the constituency. Before the last election in which I stood, the great and good 1,000 people who belonged to the civic society in my constituency threatened to run a candidate against me, specifically on the issue of housing, if I did not agree to oppose all new housebuilding in the constituency.
This is the sort of pressure which Members of Parliament face. I stood up to it. They eventually backed down on the condition that I held a big public meeting during the campaign, at which they would organise opposition to housebuilding in the area and expose me as someone who would not oppose it. I was with the other candidates, and I opened by saying that this was a moral issue. Did we want homes for our children somewhere near to where we live, or not? Did we think the next generation had to live at home until it was probably too late for them to form a family, or not? We have to accept the building of houses and find the least bad places in which to build them. We must not put our heads in the sand and pretend that they are not necessary. Because I took a moral position, the rest of the candidates were forced to follow suit. By the end of the evening, 400 people who had arrived at that hall, screaming that we should not have any more housebuilding, had largely accepted that we should.
We have to face up to this opposition to housebuilding, and we have to be honest about it. I believe too that we need to reduce the net inflow from abroad if we are to make the problem manageable. We cannot do what too many people try to do, pretending we can have massive immigration into this country and not build the extra homes this will require.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to this House. I look forward to what will no doubt be a thoughtful, considered and pertinent contribution to this debate. We worked constructively alongside each other in Hertfordshire for many years. I hope to do so again in your Lordships’ House.
I will make a quick aside to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I was dubbed “the pro-development mayor” by my political opponents, so nimbyism is not confined to one party.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for bringing forward this important debate. Quite rightly, we seem to be talking a lot about housing in both Chambers at the moment. As the noble Baroness cogently argued, we need a cross-sector housing strategy—one that spans 10, 15 or even 20 years. To succeed, I believe that it must have some degree of cross-party consensus. We on these Benches welcome this debate and the fact that the Labour Party, in common with us, is clearly putting housing front and centre of its political thinking. We too have just finished updating our housing policies, and it is not surprising that there appears to be much agreement, as there needs to be.
Across the many pressure groups, professional institutions, think tanks and government departments that provide us with many excellent briefings and statistics, there are clearly many areas of broad consensus, but none more so than the private rented sector, on which I will centre my remarks.
Change is so slow in coming. It is now more than three years since the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, declared with a fanfare of trumpets and a roll of drums that the Government would abolish no-fault evictions. In the words of the off-chanted song, why are we waiting? In that time, not only have hundreds of thousands of tenants been evicted through Section 21 notices, but more than 45,000 households have been threatened with homelessness as a result of being served such a notice. When will the renters reform Bill, based on the recent A fairer private rented sector White Paper, come to Parliament? Where is the timetable? We were promised that it would be enacted during the 2022-23 Session. According to an Answer given recently in the other place, this has now slipped to “at some point during this Parliament”. Will it abolish Section 21 evictions, or has there been some pushback from landlords?
Noble Lords may sense my frustration. The sector has always been characterised by insecure tenancies and high rents, and often poor conditions. In England, there are more than four million privately rented homes, housing more than 11 million people. There will always be a need for a decent, well-regulated private rented sector, but we do not have this now. House prices are getting beyond most low-waged and many median-waged workers, who cannot save enough to get a deposit together, given the significant rise in house prices and what they pay in rent. They can often be paying more in rent than a mortgage costs, but without the bank of mum and dad or an inheritance to provide the deposit, they are going to be renters for most of their lives.
This situation has become more acute in recent months, with letting agency statistics showing far fewer properties available to rent. Rightmove’s latest data shows that in the third quarter of this year, tenant demand for properties increased by 20% compared with the same quarter last year, and the number of properties available to rent was down by 9%—a loss of some properties, undoubtedly, to the more lucrative short-term lets market. Even the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned of rents increasing as a result of the rise in tenant demand; at the same time, the number of new landlord instructions is falling.
I have been shocked by local anecdotal accounts of the fierce competition for properties and the lengths desperate renters are going to in order to secure a property. There is evidence from letting agents of a beauty parade of renters who are competing for properties, resorting even to sending in CVs of their well-behaved children and photos of their equally well-behaved dogs, alongside the more obvious deals of offering more months’ rent up front, agreeing to do some repairs and decorating—in short, anything to get into a property. In this climate, there are no prizes for guessing who does not get the house. The like of this has not been seen before, as the country faces a financial crisis—we are now officially in recession—and a winter of much discontent. Thus the need for urgent action, and hence the frustration.
If fast-tracked through the system, the rental reform White Paper, with its 12 excellent proposals—again, broadly agreed on—could have eased the situation for many as the winter crisis looms. In the meantime, will the Government consider a two-year rent freeze while the current economic pressures are expected to reach their peak?
The Government have decided once again to freeze local housing allowance, which will push millions of hard-pressed tenants to breaking point. Will they reconsider this, if only as a temporary measure? Does the Minister agree that there is an imperative to prevent evictions as winter approaches?
Latest government figures show homelessness in England rising by 11% in three months. Also according to the Government’s own figures, eviction from private tenancies is the second leading cause of homelessness. What worries me most about these recent statistics is that, despite being in full-time work, 10,500 households were found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness. This is the highest number of people in full-time work recorded as homeless since the Government started collecting this data. There are massive implications and messages in that one statistic.
Let us not forget that those statistics are people: families, all wanting the same as we do. Eventually they tip up to their local council offices, which are cash-strapped because we have had year upon year of cuts. They are met by fewer council officers—because of the cuts—who have had years of rationing a scarce resource: namely, social housing. Given the increasing number of families and individuals in dire circumstances, that is a really tough job. In effect, they are having to play God, trying as fairly as possible to allocate a decreasing number of homes to a greater number of people. I am certain that others will elaborate on this sector.
My one plea to the Minister is: will the Government finally agree to allow councils to keep 100% of right-to-buy receipts with no strings attached, other than to build replacements? I look forward to the answers to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on social housing. There will always be a need for a social rented sector, and recent legislation to improve it cannot become effective quickly enough, as the recent death of young Awaab Ishak, who was living in social housing, proves.
Some 21% of homes in the private rented sector are non-decent, according to the most recent English Housing Survey. Making all homes decent is surely a laudable, ambitious aim for any Government, doing the right thing by people as well as creating jobs and saving money for the NHS. A recent Building Research Establishment report found that poor housing costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year, and society as a whole £18.5 billion. I say to the Chancellor that these are potentially significant long-term savings, and just think of the considerable long-lasting good.
Is there the political will to do this? It is clear that we are going to be more heavily reliant on the private rented sector than ever before, and it is in need of urgent reform now, not to be pushed back. Does the Minister have a reason for the delay, other than another new Prime Minister and yet another Housing Minister? In view of the worsening economic situation, will the Government consider pulling together all the “could do” solutions that have broad consensus and fast-tracking them to help ease the crisis that will inevitably worsen over the winter and the next two years?
Finally, how will local authorities be given the support to help those increasing numbers who will inevitably end up at their doors or on their streets?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I thank her very much for her kind comments.
It was with the greatest humility, gratitude and anticipation that I received the news that I was to be nominated by Sir Keir Starmer to join this House—something that would never have come into my wildest dreams, for reasons your Lordships will learn of when I introduce myself. I start by thanking Keir for my nomination, and my two great friends and supporters who got me through the unique experience of being introduced to this House, my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Wilcox of Newport. I thank sincerely my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, our Leader in this House, who has shown me the greatest kindness and encouragement, and noble friends on these Benches who have given me such a warm welcome, as have noble Lords from across the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, and I were introduced to this House on the same day, and indeed had our appointment with Black Rod together. It struck me then how extraordinary it is that he and I, coming from almost polar opposite ends of British society, could be entering your Lordships’ House together—such is the strength of our country and our Parliament. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for his courtesy and kindness.
On my second day here, I approached the Peers’ Entrance with some trepidation, impostor syndrome on full throttle. The day before, at my introduction, I had been accompanied by my family, friends and supporters, but this felt very different. I did not need to worry. As I showed my pass, the doorkeeper greeted me with the kind words, “Do come in, my Lady, and welcome back home.” That, I have come to learn, is the culture and warmth of this place. From my very first appointments with Garter, Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments to my day-to-day interactions with the doorkeepers, staff and catering teams, everyone has been welcoming, helpful, knowledgeable and highly professional. Thank you so much to all of you; it is a truly exceptional team.
I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for securing this important debate today and introducing it. It gives me the opportunity to make my first speech in this House on a topic so close to my heart and so interwoven into my life and career that it has literally shaped who I am and what I have done. That is because my hometown, the place where I was born, brought up and still live, is Stevenage, Britain’s first post-war new town; a town that was built to house people, to provide the homes for heroes that had sadly not been delivered after the First World War, and to keep that promise after the ravages that London and other major cities had suffered during the Second World War. Our new towns were born from the inspirational vision of the same post-war Labour Government that created our NHS and the welfare state, including the National Assistance Act 1946 and the Transport Act 1947. Stevenage was designated to be the first of this new generation of new towns, almost exactly 76 years ago, on 11 November 1946.
My parents, both Londoners, married in 1954. They had searched endlessly for a home in London that they could afford, but with mum a trainee pharmacist and dad recently demobbed from national service in the Royal Air Force and embarking on his engineering career, there was little that they could afford. Then dad was offered a job with English Electric, soon to relocate to Stevenage, and they were offered a three-bedroom house along with the job. My parents, like so many others, became new town pioneers. This has given me the extraordinary privilege of growing up not only in my hometown but with my hometown, which is just 10 years older than I am.
The vision for new towns was set out in the New Towns Act 1946 and championed by one of our local heroes, a late Member of this House, Lord Lewis Silkin. He did not always have an easy ride during the passage of the Bill. It seems that planning was just as controversial in 1946 as it is now. When he arrived in old Stevenage for a public meeting relating to the new town, the railway station sign had been removed and replaced by angry residents with one saying “Silkingrad”. Lord Silkin held his nerve. His vision was to enact the Abercrombie plan for a town that was planned thoroughly in advance of being built, with segregated residential, commercial and industrial areas, and good connectivity by road and rail; a town planned to have connected but self-contained communities, each with their own health, education, leisure and shopping facilities, and with plentiful green spaces and access for all to parks and countryside. Importantly for today’s debate, it was to be a town with a variety of housing to meet the needs of working families of all income levels.
No one, especially me, will pretend that our new towns developed without their own challenges and issues. But my pioneering parents gave me and my sisters the opportunity to grow up in a strong, cohesive community. That is why, following a career where I worked in the defence industry, for John Lewis Partnership and, latterly, spent the most incredible 13 years as staff officer to the chief constable of Hertfordshire, my lifelong support for the Labour Party drew me to stand as a Stevenage councillor, to give something back to the town and community that I love.
My first election was on 1 May 1997, a date emblazoned on the memories of most of us on this side of the House. I have been a councillor since then; I have led my council since 2006, and have been fortunate to contribute to the leadership of local government nationally through the Local Government Association since 2009. My specialism has been the labyrinthine world of local government finance, which is partly the key to unlocking the housing challenge that we face. That is why I want to focus on social housing today.
Between 1945 and 1980, local authorities and housing associations built 4.4 million social homes—more than 126,000 a year—but by 1983, that supply had halved to just over 44,000 a year. This followed a major shift in social housing policy, particularly, but not exclusively, the right-to-buy scheme of Margaret Thatcher’s Government. Failure to replace the stock bought under right to buy means that, in Stevenage, our stock has fallen from 32,000 to less than 8,000 homes. The promise to our pioneers that their children, grandchildren and parents would be housed has been broken.
The retained right-to-buy funding regime permits only 40% of the cost of constructing a replacement dwelling to come from right-to-buy receipts. Failing to take account of rising property, land and commodity prices in the construction industry, the shortfall on a new-build property in my area is currently £186,000, forcing us to use additional borrowing, with a trade-off between repairs and management of existing stock or building private homes for sale simply to fund any replacement homes at all.
Over 2 million sales of social homes have taken place, but research shows that over 40% of these are now rented privately. Affordable social housing turned into unaffordable private rented housing, with a consequent catastrophic effect on family budgets. It is also economically illiterate, as housing benefit spending has risen by 50%, peaking at £24.3 billion in the last year of recorded statistics. The average monthly rent for a two-bedroom privately rented property in my town is now £312 a week, against the local housing allowance of £195. No wonder there is a cost of living crisis.
Against a target of 300,000 homes a year, we are currently building a little over 100,000. This problem will not get better unless we turbo-charge the number of homes of all tenures, particularly social housing, that we build in this country. Let us get back to those first principles of our new towns—of building communities and homes, not just places and houses. Let us take the design and detail of our development seriously and, to meet the challenge we have that Lord Silkin did not, let us build sustainably, so that we do not exacerbate the backlog of £204 million that I will need to decarbonise 8,000 social homes in Stevenage.
We all know that a safe, warm, secure home is the foundation stone for every individual, family and community. My passion for housing is undimmed, as is my pride in Stevenage, the town I grew up with. I finish by quoting Lord Silkin:
“The new towns can be experiments in design as well as in living … This combination of town and country is vital … I believe that if all these conditions are satisfied, we may well produce in the new towns a new type of citizen, a healthy, self-respecting, dignified person with a sense of beauty, culture and civic pride. Cicero said: ‘A man’s dignity is enhanced by the home he lives in’.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/1946; col. 1091.]
Let us renew our vision, our focus and our inspiration so that everyone in our country, and indeed future generations, will have the opportunity of a home that enhances their dignity. Thank you.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the “of Stevenage” being particularly significant. I congratulate her on a splendid maiden speech. No-one could bring a more relevant lifetime of experience and understanding of housing issues, for which we are deeply grateful. I know she brings considerable experience as a county councillor for Hertfordshire and as leader of Stevenage Borough Council. I must declare my own interest, in passing, as a past president and now a vice-president of the Local Government Association. She was deputy chair of the LGA from 2008 right through to 2017 and I know she was a huge success in that role.
Stevenage’s motto is “The heart of a town lies in its people” and I think the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, lies in the town she has served continuously for over 25 years. Times may be tough for local government, but I am certain that the noble Baroness will ensure that its voice is heard loud and clear in this Chamber.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for leading this most timely debate and I echo her view that the nation’s housing is in a critical state. But the acute shortage of the homes we need has accumulated over decades: for over 30 years, the number of extra homes built each year has been less than the number of new households that have formed. These years of undersupply are finally catching up with us.
Dramatically fewer people have been able to get on the housing ladder, with owner-occupation for those aged under 30 falling from 47% 20 years ago to under 25% today. Now those wanting to buy face even greater problems, made worse by the hike in interest rates following the fateful mini-Budget. Over 1.5 million households are queuing for social housing from councils or housing associations, but that sector has halved in size, from one-third of the nation’s homes to just 17%, while social landlords face a mountain of extra building and borrowing costs that will hold back their new-build affordable housing programme.
For more and more people, the only option is the private rented sector, which has doubled in size during the first two decades of this century. However, here we are seeing falling numbers of available lettings because landlords, deterred by higher interest rates on top of other disincentives, are exiting the market or, in some areas, switching to Airbnb and very short-term lettings.
Demand is up by 20% while supply is down 9%, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. With consequent fierce competition for privately rented properties, young people are spending half their income on securing a rented, not always decent, flat. More couples must postpone having children indefinitely. Down the income scale, overcrowding and slum conditions exacerbate health inequalities and put further strains on the NHS. Rent increases, coupled with frozen levels of housing allowances, push more households below the poverty line. Councils spend over £1 billion a year on temporary accommodation. Street homelessness has risen again and, of course, there is simply nowhere for refugees and asylum seekers to be housed.
There are a dozen urgent measures that could and should provide temporary relief, but we also need to address the underlying cause of this national failure. What would make the biggest difference to getting more homes built—as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, suggests we need to do—and galvanising the process of reducing the disastrous housing shortages?
Top of my wish list for fundamental change is the adoption of the mechanisms for land value capture advocated by Sir Oliver Letwin in his 2018 review. Sir Oliver got to the heart of why we have been failing, year after year, to build what we need. Yes, we should resource our local planning departments to speed up the planning process, but that is not why we get such a slow build-out of new developments and build so few new homes affordable to the half of the population on average incomes or less, or why we have developments that continuously fail us on so many counts. We also see SME builders being excluded, despite those firms often being more in tune with local needs, the local vernacular and the local labour market.
Leaving to one side the handful of excellent new developments by enlightened landowners and non-profit developers, the UK is simply not getting the quantity or quality of homes we need. The reason, says the Letwin review, is that we have handed over the decision-making process for all major housing developments to the oligopoly of volume housebuilders. These companies initiate each new scheme: they secure the land, they produce their plans and they build their development, in their own time and at a speed that suits them. The role of the local planning authority is confined to raising objections and fighting back, without the staff or the budget to insist on an alternative development that would genuinely meet the requirements of the locality.
The housebuilders’ business model requires them to fight, with their lawyers and consultants, for the minimum number of affordable homes—the maximum number of properties they can squeeze on to a site, with the least green infrastructure and the fewest amenities, and to build at a speed that ensures the continuing scarcity that drives up prices. Our system rewards the very actions by housebuilders most at odds with the public interest.
Instead, the Letwin review tells us we should take back control. Letwin puts the scale at 1,500 homes but his formula is just as applicable for 150: for every major development, land should be acquired at a price that relates to its current use—for example, for agricultural land, Letwin suggests paying no more than 10 times the agricultural value—with a master plan that determines what is built and parcels out sites to different builders and providers, for a range of uses and tenures. Having bought the land at a reasonable price, using compulsory purchase powers if necessary, a development becomes viable that actually and promptly delivers the social benefits missing today.
To achieve this upending of the current, highly unsatisfactory process, Letwin proposes local authorities establish arm’s-length development corporations, as is quite possible under existing law. These would borrow the finance to buy the site and capture the land value uplift. The development corporation’s master plan can then incorporate all the features of healthy place-making.
This approach follows the pattern of the garden cities and the new towns in a scaled-down version—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, pertinently referred to the technique of the new towns. The cost to the Exchequer is less for a much higher-quality outcome. This process accelerates delivery, removing the friction and delay from the housebuilders and the planners waging war, often for years.
I commend these Letwin recommendations and would greatly welcome the comments of the Minister. Let us address the root causes of our housing ills; let us take back control and start building what society wants and desperately needs.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a relatively short debate so far, but it has been a privilege to be here and listen to contributions and, inevitably, to the magnificent introductory speech of my noble friend Lady Taylor. I think it has set a difficult standard that not all of us reach.
We have a very broad subject before us. I am going to focus on the private rental market in London. It is arguable that, because of the nature of London, the private rental market is particularly important because of the people who come to London, how long they stay here and the sort of people they are. The problem is that the private rental market in London is failing.
First, I will say a word about London. It is, of course, the greatest city where all human life can be found. To pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, we welcome people to London from all over the world. They are welcome and we regard them as being a net benefit to our life—even taking account of the decent housing with which they must be provided. The important point is that the success of London is not counterposed to the success of the rest of the country. I would argue, though it is not always a popular argument, that the success of the rest of the country depends on a successful London. To a significant extent, because of the particular and distinct importance of the private rental market in London, the success of the country depends on a functioning private rental market in London. This echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that it is an economic issue; decent housing is not just about accommodation but about the whole economy and its success.
The 2021 census estimated that London’s population stood at 8.8 million. It is forecast to grow, heading towards 10 million on some estimates. Of course, that is a churning population: people come, and people leave. I find it difficult to understand why they leave—I have stayed. The private rental housing market in London does not serve the purposes of this rotating population. This is in the context of our worsening cost of living crisis; the fiscal Statement earlier today forecast that things are going to get worse over the next few years.
Already, more and more Londoners, particularly those in private rental accommodation, are finding it such a struggle to make ends meet and to afford their basic needs. They are faced with a situation where, as the GLA reported this year, in
“March 2022, the median rent for a privately rented home in London was £1,450 per … month, … twice as high as the median in England as a whole … London’s rents are so much higher than those of other regions that the median monthly rent for a one-bedroom home in the capital (£1,225) is higher than the median rent for a home with four or more bedrooms across all of the North and Midlands.”
Following the success at moving away from Covid—I am not suggesting that we have solved the problem, but we are in a favourable trend—rents are now increasing faster than the temporary respite they had during the Covid pandemic. Zoopla reports that average rents in London were 17.8% higher this July than they were in the year before.
As I have explained, London’s economic success depends on a successful privately rented housing sector, alongside an important role for social housing. I gave a speech on social housing in this Chamber last week on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in which I emphasised the importance of council housing. I will not repeat that, although it is worth repeating it again. I discussed Harold Macmillan’s success, when he was Housing Minister, of achieving the then Conservative Government’s target of 350,000 new houses a year, many of which, I assume, were in Stevenage—so it can be done. However, I will not address that on this occasion; noble Lords can read my detailed contribution in Hansard.
Instead, I will continue to focus on private rental housing. I do not go along with the idea of demonising private landlords. I do not assume that they set out to provide poorly maintained stock at excessive costs, but clearly there are problems. The GLA, which I will cite again, has undertaken a survey of private tenants, finding that
“55% of private renting households in London”—
only 55%—
“said they were satisfied with … their accommodation”.
In other words, 45% were dissatisfied—representing an increase from 33% two years previously. The underlying problem we must confront is the inevitable tension that arises between, on the one hand, the provision of a human service—in this case, housing, which should be a social right that is available, of a good standard and affordable—and, on the other, a service that is being provided commercially. As we operate it at the moment, it is to the detriment of the people who are in the private rental sector.
I am glad that the issue of Airbnb was mentioned, because that is creating particular tension in some areas of London. However, I am not talking about Airbnb or the high-value rentals available to those on high incomes; I am talking about the lower-cost housing for people on incomes that are lower than average and who cannot afford to buy, but who need or want to work in London for employment, family or other reasons.
There is the oddity and counterintuitive fact that it is often more expensive to rent than it is to buy the house, provided that you have some capital in the first place. People are in the fix that they cannot afford to save to buy a house, because they are paying too much in rent. It is in that light that, again, these GLA figures tell us that 40% of London’s private renters are likely to struggle to make their rent payments in the next six months—so we have an immediate crisis.
The mayor, Sadiq Khan, held a housing crisis meeting earlier this week with representatives of the housing sector, and they are calling for greater security and safety for London’s private renters. I support the mayor’s call on the Government to introduce a two-year rent freeze, analogous to holding down the cost of energy, to address the soaring costs of living in London. Such a freeze has been introduced in Scotland. The Government should represent the democratic mandate that the mayor achieved; he fought on the basis of achieving this rental freeze, and we should look to the Government to support him in achieving this policy.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to her place. I am aware of the substantial work that she did on regional development banking, which has been of particular interest to me since the 1970s, when I wrote a paper. I also liked her reference to Lewis Silkin, who in 1960 I met in Milan in Italy when I was a 17 year-old boy, and who advised me to join the Labour Party, having had a political discussion with me.
I want to concentrate my remarks on a controversial report on Exempt Accommodation from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. At its heart is a disturbing commentary on the appalling conditions in which people in exempt accommodation are having to live. I need to quote directly from the report, because there is a desperate need for all of us fully to understand what is happening. The devastating attack on housing provision for the poor should be considered in the context of the report’s opening comments:
“it was surprising to have undertaken a piece of work that has shocked and alarmed us as much as this inquiry has … the system involves the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. This gold-rush is all paid for by taxpayers through housing benefit.”
What an indictment that is of government housing policy. The report goes on to challenge “the quality of provision” and
“its … significant growth in some areas … and the exploitation of the system by people seeking to make profit from it”.
The report cites the impact on people, stating that:
“It is clear from our inquiry that some residents’ experiences of exempt accommodation are beyond disgraceful, and that some people’s situations actually deteriorate as a result of the shocking conditions in which they live. Where the very worst experiences are occurring, this points to a complete breakdown of the system … Areas with high concentrations of exempt accommodation can also attract anti-social behaviour, crime—including the involvement of organised criminal gangs—rubbish, and vermin”.
The report calls for a system of national standards for referral of those people in desperate need and proposes that local authorities take on that role. It calls on the Government to publish national standards, with powers for local authorities to enforce those standards which would include a referral process that works, proper care support and supervision, standards of housing quality and, most importantly, information that a provider would be required to give to the resident as to their rights. The committee regarded the whole problem as so acute that it warranted special additional funding.
In a series of dramatic statements on domestic abuse, the report flagged up its finding that
“organisations with no expertise are able to target survivors of domestic abuse and their children and provide neither specialist support nor an appropriate or safe environment”.
This is Dickensian stuff. The report seeks to ameliorate the position of those suffering domestic abuse, and proposed that
“where a prospective resident of exempt accommodation is a survivor of domestic abuse, there must be a requirement that housing benefit is only paid to providers that have recognised expertise and meet the standards”
of care in the Domestic Abuse Act.
The report revealed that, while extraordinarily some providers do not fall under the remit of any regulator, the patchwork of existing regulation was full of holes. It reports on an acute absence of data on exempt accommodation—which I found quite incredible—and then reveals that there is an absence of data and statistics rendering the committee’s inquiry
“unable to establish how widespread the very worst experiences are”,
and even
“how many exempt accommodation claimants and providers there are.”
It is a devastating report, perhaps one of the worst I have read during my many decades in Parliament. I say to colleagues: please read it. The report goes on with a call to the Government to urgently conduct a review of exempt housing benefit claims to determine how much is being spent. The committee felt that
“the current system offers a licence to print money to those who wish to exploit the system.”
The truth is that we are being taken for fools by those who are prepared to play fast and loose with our laws and ignore human rights.
There is one final recommendation in the report on the wider issue of authorisation. The suggestion is that the Government “end the existing exemptions” that registered providers enjoy from HMO licensing arrangements, and
“that the loophole relating to non-registered providers with properties containing six or fewer residents also be addressed so that they are brought within the”
whole exempt accommodation regime within the law.
This whole debate about exempt accommodation, which I knew very little about before reading this report, and I suspect that many Members of the House have little knowledge about, raises real questions about priorities in life and our treatment of those who have little and so often live in real poverty.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this important and timely debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on leading it. I also greatly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on her maiden speech, which showed us what we need and what we are missing. I liked a lot of what she had to say about the fact that it is communities and not just buildings we are talking about here. I must say that I had not heard Lord Silkin’s inspiring words before she said them at the end of her speech.
I am coming at this from the perspective of quality rather than numbers—quality and health. I suspect that I am probably the least knowledgeable person about housing in this debate. I have come to it rather late, after realising something I should have realised long ago about the extraordinary interconnections between health and housing and how absolutely fundamental they are. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, have made the point that housing is a foundation for people’s lives. I think he said something about how many of our social and economic problems stem from poor housing within our society. I absolutely agree with that.
I have been gradually learning about housing and have been astonished to understand what major problems there are right across the entire system, from the inability to build the numbers that we say we are going to build, to questions of quality of construction and repairs and questions of planning. Within all that, there are some obvious health issues. I refer briefly to the tragic story of the young child in Rochdale who died very recently from mould in completely inadequate housing. I refer also to how, during Covid, we know that things such as lack of ventilation and overcrowding affected the lives of many, sometimes with fatal consequences. There are something like 2 million older households living in poor housing. As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the NHS faces massive costs because of poor housing: one estimate is at least £1.4 billion annually. Of that, 60% was due to cold and around 30% to falls—two things that are preventable, but neither of which it looks as if in the near future we will see much improvement in. Of course, there are other issues here about independent living.
There are extraordinary interconnections between poor housing—which is what we are talking about—and health, and it is vital to get both right. This has a long history; indeed, the first Minister of Health was also a Minister of Housing. I am not going to suggest to the current Secretary of State that he may wish to add that to his other duties at the moment but, somewhere, the close connection between housing and health has got lost. This is a very clear example of why we need the sort of strategy that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is proposing, which looks at it in the context of wider social, economic and environmental issues. I have been talking about health, but somebody else in this debate could equally stand up and talk about the environmental impact of poor housing and the fact that so much carbon is used, not just in the construction but on a continuing basis. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who commented on how much finance would be needed in Stevenage to bring houses up to the required standard.
So there is a clear need for a new strategy that takes a really comprehensive view. As part of that, we obviously need to get regulation right. I am in fact not a great fan of regulation, having run teaching hospitals in Oxford and been very aware that ill-thought-through regulation can be extraordinarily damaging. But there is a need for less—in some ways—but smarter regulation here. I have heard plenty of examples—and we have just heard them again from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—of where regulation does not cover the entire field, where there is conflict between different sets of regulations, or where there are policy conflicts. I am aware myself of policy conflicts where it is very difficult to get through planning some of the obvious things that are needed to improve environmental issues. There is a whole range of conflicts here.
However, I was surprised to discover, when I talked to the chief executive of one of the major housing developers, which produces very high-quality houses, about regulation—which obviously he did not particularly want—the point he made was that there is nobody who checks up on the regulation. This, I guess, must be known well to other people in the Chamber, but the surprising point that he was making is that there is a lot of regulation but not very much in the way of inspection. Local authorities and others have lost a lot of the staff who would otherwise be making sure that regulation was properly applied. The implication he left me with was that good developers of course pay attention to the regulations, but many others do not.
So there seem to be some major problems in the way regulation is handled at the moment. What are the levers that this Government are going to use, perhaps including regulation but maybe including codes of good practice or incentives? How will they ensure that in future we will not see more poor-quality homes being built? Because we are seeing poor-quality homes being built, partly through permitted development rights but also through other routes. How can the Government ensure that we stop the problem getting worse, let alone move forward to improve things?
We need a comprehensive strategy that covers social, economic and environmental aspects. There is plenty of expertise around. There are plenty of reports. My noble friend Lord Best spelled out the importance of Sir Oliver Letwin’s report of some years ago now and how it pointed to an essential problem underlying all of this. So, there is an enormous amount of expertise and we also need a clear vision of what this or any future Government seek to do with their housing strategy. While I and others have been talking about all the negative impacts of poor housing and poor maintenance and the impact they have on people, there is also a positive aspect here. It takes us back, of course, to the new towns and garden cities, to Port Sunlight and other aspects of past developments when people saw and understood that housing as part of the development of cities and towns is about enhancing life, about the ability to provide a foundation for people’s lives so they can thrive, and about their health and well-being, as well as everything else.
I will end on two final points. One is that we need to start to think about this in positive terms, addressing the problems but actually setting out a strategy that builds something that is positive for the future and sees this as the foundation of people’s lives and their ability to thrive, as well as being essential for their health and well-being. We cannot expect the nation to prosper successfully if we treat people’s homes in the way we are doing at the moment. I return to my final question. How will this Government ensure that there are no more poor-quality homes being built?
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
Margaret Thatcher had a vision of a property-owning democracy, in which citizens should own the dwellings they occupy. In 1980, the Conservatives’ Housing Act gave council tenants the right to buy their homes at discounted prices. Surely, the belief was that property owners are more likely to vote Conservative than are the dispossessed or people who are reliant on public authorities to provide their housing. Home ownership had been increasing since the 1950s, when roughly 30% of occupants were owners. Following the Housing Act of 1980, the growth of ownership continued, with the proportion rising to a peak of 70% in 2000. Since then, it has been steadily declining towards 60%.
Social housing in the form of council houses and flats had been steadily increasing since the 1920s. The expansion was at the expense of private renting, which often involved severely substandard dwellings. Since 1980, social housing has experienced a radical decline in consequence of the sale of the council properties and the cessation of council house building. Since 1990, the proportion of private renters has increased from a mere 12% to the present 20%, and we have heard much about the pathologies of the sector. In consequence of the failure to build sufficient numbers of houses, there is now a crisis and the shortage has led to inflated property prices. When these are affected by the current high rates of interest on mortgages, the impact on personal finances becomes severe.
In talking of home ownership, as I shall, one must be precise in the definitions, both of the nature of the properties and the conditions of their ownership. The majority of dwellings are flats, rather than houses, and the majority of the occupants of flats who are classified as owner-occupiers are, in fact, leaseholders who own a tenuous right to occupy their dwellings for a limited period.
Most newly built houses are nowadays sold to leaseholders, many of whom are reported to have been surprised to discover the limits of their ownership. There have been angry accusations of mis-selling. Leaseholding is an insecure and problematic form of tenure, which has been increasingly subject to abuses originating with the freeholders, who can be powerful and exploitative. The law grants leaseholders the right to buy the freeholds of their properties, but the cost of doing so is subject to a negotiation with the freeholder, who is in a position to make it unaffordable. There is an urgent requirement for legislation to reduce or eliminate the scope for abuses, but the Government have been slow or unwilling to act, in spite of promises to do so.
Building contractors, large and small, are responsible for enabling the abuses of leaseholders of newly built properties. Once the leaseholds of the properties have been purchased for the first time, the constructors are liable to sell the freeholds to a property company. A substantial price can be commanded because the freeholder will be able to derive a large income by charging the unwitting leaseholder exorbitantly for a variety of real or imaginary services.
One of these charges will be the ground rent, albeit that this will no longer be available on properties sold after 2022. There are also service charges attributable to communal areas in housing estates or for the upkeep of roads on an estate that have not been adopted by the local authority. Service charges for drainage and sewerage are not uncommon, albeit that these services are charged for by the local rates. These costs should normally be attributable to the costs of the housing development. Other charges levied by freeholders concern permission to make alterations to the property, including painting the front door, for example.
However, the major burden imposed on leaseholders results from a regular escalation of the service charges, which can be doubled every few years. Such charges can severely affect the value of the properties so as to render them virtually unsaleable at a reasonable price. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a so-called fixed service charge, which does not reflect the actual cost of any services provided, cannot be challenged for reasonableness. It can escalate in an unbridled manner.
Occupants of flats are liable to face far worse abuses than are suffered by the leaseholders of newly built houses. The freehold can be sold over their heads without consultation or agreement. Property companies intent on deriving large incomes have purchased many such freeholds, and service charges can be levied when no services are provided. A management company that is the ostensible provider of the services is typically a subsidiary of the property company that has acquired the freeholds, even if it does not go by the same name.
A leaseholder has the right to appeal to a so-called tier one tribunal against the levy of unfair charges. A Minister declared recently in the Lords that service charges are governed by the law and must be reasonable, but this is far from the case; a leaseholder would be strongly advised against making an appeal to the tribunal. The reason for this advice is that freeholders nowadays issue contracts in which the small print declares that their leaseholders will be liable to pay any legal costs that the property companies might incur if they are called before the tribunal. One might have imagined that the costs of litigation would be assigned by the tribunal in view of the outcomes of the legal processes, but this is far from the case. Freeholders may call on expensive legal representation to make their case with the assurance that they will not pay for it.
A wealth of horror stories regarding this abuse can be found on a website called Leasehold Knowledge. This is the creation of two financial journalists who have been horrified by what they have uncovered. A litigious leaseholder can find themselves bankrupted by their attempt to seek redress against unfair charges. If a leaseholder in financial distress can no longer pay the charges for non-existent services, the freeholder can take possession of the property and no compensation for the loss is payable to the leaseholder.
These matters urgently demand legislative intervention but, so far, little has been forthcoming from the Government. Instead, the prospective legislation is the product of Private Members’ Bills. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, admittedly a piece of government legislation, effectively abolished ground rents, which had been a vehicle for exploitation, but it leaves open many other avenues for freeholders to fleece leaseholders.
Presently, three Private Members’ Bills that address the problems of leaseholding have been introduced into the Lords. I am heartened by these initiatives, but I fear that they will fail to get a Second Reading before the end of the Session. I ask the Minister why the Government cannot adopt these Bills as their own. The Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill would compel the freeholder or the managing agent—liable to be a subsidiary company—to be transparent in itemising its costs. At present, the leaseholder has no means of knowing the details of the insurance on their property, which is liable to be charged at an exorbitant rate. The Leasehold Reform (Disclosure and Insurance Commissions) Bill seeks to make these matters more transparent. Finally, there is the Leasehold Reform (Tribunal Judgments and Legal Costs) Bill. This would nullify the clauses in the leaseholder contracts that burden leaseholders with the freeholder’s legal expenses. It would also prevent the freeholder using the service charges to burden the other leaseholders in a building with the costs incurred in defending a case brought before a tribunal by one of their number.
How have these abuses arisen? I fear they are the consequences of an increasingly dysfunctional society in which opportunities for gainful employment are diminishing. In such circumstances, rent-seeking and extortion flourish, and dogs eat dogs. The larger and the more powerful dogs can wreak havoc.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for introducing the debate so eloquently. I welcome this debate to consider the housing issues facing the UK today, but let me first say how proud I am to hear my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage make such an excellent maiden speech. She joins this House with a wealth of experience in local government and I know she has an enormous amount to contribute to the House, especially in flying the flag for Stevenage and Symonds Green.
Stevenage was established by the New Towns Act 1946 and represents the success of the post-war Labour Government who built homes for heroes from the rubble of war. In the years since, this country has changed far beyond what the builders of Stevenage could ever have imagined, but the news this week that a toddler in Rochdale has died from exposure to mould shows that the squalor in society that Beveridge identified persists today. Just yesterday, the Secretary of State told the other House that more must be done. I am convinced that “more must be done” is no longer enough. The only answer to housing conditions in the UK today is an effort that matches the Herculean effort of the post-war Government because, tragically, the death of two year-old Awaab Ishak is not an isolated case and squalid conditions are not the only problem. My noble friend Lady Warwick talked about 2 million children living in unsuitable, unaffordable and overcrowded housing in the UK.
Access to housing is increasingly difficult, especially for those who have traditionally benefited from social homes. There are now 1.4 million fewer households in social housing than there were in 1980, despite the population of our country growing by over 10 million in the same period. Building good-quality and well-regulated social housing is the relief that the Government can provide to so many millions of families struggling today. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, over half of renters on low incomes would be lifted out of housing unaffordability were they to be offered homes at social rent levels.
We must also look to new and innovative forms of community and co-operative housing, learning from successful models in places such as Sunderland, Liverpool and Lancaster, where they build community wealth or collective ownership and have seen over 25,000 houses built so far. Such models give residents a greater say over design and management and can be paired with new community land trusts to provide community-owned affordable homes.
I recognise that home ownership is an ambition for millions and an achievement for many more. In the more immediate term, we need to address the present mortgage crisis, which means that a household refinancing a two-year fixed mortgage will be paying £500 more per month on average.
The result of this crisis will be that people who have worked and saved to own a place of their own will lose the roof over their head. Needless to say, on home ownership the limit of ambition should stretch far beyond addressing the immediate crisis—we must ask why home ownership rates have fallen and the number of new affordable homes available to buy has plummeted.
Following the Chancellor’s mini-Budget, more than 40% of available mortgages were withdrawn from the market, and lenders priced in interest rates for two-year fixed-rate products at over 6%, and, unfortunately, the Statement today did not address the issues for many people. This has a very real and immediate impact. Mortgage repossessions soared by 91% compared with the same period last year, while the number of orders to seize property are up by 103%.
While the situation now is worse than ever in recent memory, this is the latest culmination of a trajectory which began in 2010. There are now 800,000 fewer householders under 45 who own their home and nearly 1 million more people in private rented properties than 12 years ago. For a significant part of the population, private renting will be the right option, but there should be an alternative. The Government’s own White Paper admits that the private rented sector
“offers the most expensive, least secure, and lowest quality housing to 4.4 million households”,
and they are correct. One-fifth of private tenants in England are now spending a third of their income on housing that is non-decent.
Unfortunately, soaring rents are not the only issue that private renters have to contend with, as we have heard in other contributions today. There is also an unfair power imbalance which allows landlords to act with impunity, as seen in the continued use of no-fault evictions, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and as demonstrated by the fact that over a fifth of private renters who moved in 2019-20 did not end their tenancy by choice.
My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe in the title of this debate calls for a “coherent strategy” to address housing problems in the UK today. As I said earlier, that strategy must take inspiration from the post-war Labour Government. I want briefly to share a quote from the Health Secretary of that historic period, Nye Bevan, who said:
“We shall be judged in a year or two by the number of houses we build. We shall be judged in ten years’ time by the type of houses we build”.
I would add that we should judge ourselves by the health and quality of life of the people who today live in homes that were built by previous generations.
Turning to some powerful contributions from speakers with great expertise, knowledge and experience, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, mentioned a speech he made in the other House many years ago in which he said that the cure for the housing crisis is to build more homes—that is absolutely clear. Many years ago, that was seen by the press in a different manner, but I am sure that everyone now appreciates that clear, simple message.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked about being a pro-development mayor, and we need a pro-development ministerial approach to address this crisis. The noble Baroness also talked about change being slow; in particular, she mentioned the renters reform Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
My noble friend Lady Taylor, while making her excellent maiden speech, made a very pertinent point: safe, secure and warm houses are essential to one’s dignity. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, repeated the idea that this is not just about buildings; it is about communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, made a very important point about affordability and looking at the underlying reasons behind the housing crisis. The noble Lord talked about the Oliver Letwin recommendations; can I press the Minister on whether they have been implemented? What assessment have the Government made of them?
I am afraid that the story of Awaab Ishak shows a tragic failure on many fronts. The death of Awaab was preventable; that it happened in modern Britain is unconscionable. Dangerous housing conditions are all too common. Today, we must mark a step change in the urgency shown towards safety and standards. The coroner said that the death of Awaab will and should be a “defining moment” for the housing sector. With the power and platform that the Minister has, what urgent steps will she be taking to ensure that this appalling tragedy never happens again? It should never have taken the death of a two year-old boy to get us to act on a widely accepted chronic problem in the housing sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I know it is of considerable interest to many noble Lords and I am grateful for their contributions today.
I also give a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. It is lovely to have somebody else from local government to join the little local government family we have in this Chamber. It is also nice to see her face to face, as I watch her most Sundays on the BBC Look East programme from my house in Norfolk and I feel I know her from that. It is lovely to see you, and I hope we can spend a bit of time together talking about things that are of interest to both of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, is absolutely right: it is horrendous and totally unacceptable that Awaab Ishak died so tragically in a house in Rochdale—a house that was under social housing providers. We spoke about that last night and I do not want to talk about it much more, other than to say that the Secretary of State gave a very clear Statement in the other place yesterday, which I repeated in this Chamber. That said that we will continue to review everything to do with this case and make the necessary changes to ensure that it does not happen again. I said that yesterday and I repeat it today. As I also said yesterday, our thoughts and prayers are with Awaab’s family at this very difficult time.
A well-functioning housing system gives people the capacity to put down roots in their community and provides them with the confidence that their home will be safe and decent. The residential construction industry is an important contributor to our economic output, enabling movement of labour and productivity growth. Good housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made very clear, gives people good health both physically and mentally. The Government accept that.
As my noble friends rightly pointed out, people across the country and across all tenures face housing challenges. Too many people are struggling to get a foothold on the housing ladder and too many houses are substandard. This Government do not underestimate the challenge ahead. We know that there are short-term challenges: mortgage rates and private rents have increased alongside other household bills. We are monitoring the situation closely and taking action where necessary. Our interventions have so far included the Government’s energy bills support package and further measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today: an extension of the energy price guarantee beyond April, at an adjusted rate; additional cost of living payments, which will be made in 2023-24; and a 7% cap on the increase in social rents. But we heard today that longer-term challenges in the housing market also need to be addressed.
As today’s Autumn Statement shows, the Government are taking the decisions needed to ensure our strategy is fiscally responsible. We will also continue our work to address the longer-term structural issues in our housing system that are affecting people across all tenures. As we strive to build the homes people need, we must champion the needs of communities, provide the right infrastructure, preserve the green belt and protect our environment at the same time.
This Government have made significant progress in reforming the housing system. Levels of first-time buyers are now at a 20-year high. The supply of new homes reached 243,000 in 2019-20—a 30-year high. We are already seeing a steady improvement in the quality of homes and on building safety. The number of people sleeping on the streets in England is at an eight-year low. More than half a million households have been supported into secure accommodation since the landmark Homelessness Reduction Act came into force in 2018.
But, let me stress, there is a lot more to do. That is why we have committed to an ambitious housing mission as part of the Government’s overarching strategy on levelling up. The Levelling Up White Paper sets out the Government’s strategy to create a fair and just housing system that works for everyone, boosting home ownership and improving housing quality.
As I noted last week, during the debate on the Built Environment Committee’s report Meeting Housing Demand, housebuilding is a priority for this Government. I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for his contribution, and I agree about the need to build more homes. There is compelling evidence that increasing the responsiveness of housing supply will help achieve better outcomes, including helping moderate house prices, provide for population growth and improve quality and choice.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in the 2019 Conservative manifesto we committed to continue working towards delivering 300,000 new homes a year. We have announced a £10 billion investment in housing supply since the start of this Parliament. Our housing supply interventions are due ultimately to unlock more than 1 million new homes during the current Parliament and beyond.
To help diversify the housebuilding industry, as part of this investment, we have launched the £1.5 billion levelling up home building fund. This fund provides loans to SME builders, developers, self and custom-builders and innovators, to deliver 42,000 homes. It will support SME developers to grow their businesses, deliver new homes and create a more diverse housing market. We are also embracing modern methods of construction that can help deliver good-quality new homes more quickly and more sustainably, with the potential to improve productivity in the industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, also raised the important issue of social housing supply. We are continuing to invest in the delivery of affordable homes, including social rented and supported housing. Our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will build tens of thousands of homes, helping first-time buyers to get on to the ladder, providing more stable, affordable rented options, including social rental, and delivering new supported housing for older, disabled and other vulnerable people. The Government remain committed to our 10-year vision for the reform of adult social care. We are taking forward proposals in the People at the Heart of Care White Paper.
Following today’s fiscal Statement, departments are reviewing specific spending plans. Details will be announced in due course.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor, both raised the matter of right to buy receipts. Since the reform of the housing revenue account and the introduction of self-financing in April 2012, a proportion of receipts is paid to the Treasury. These considerations remain important. There are no current plans to release anything further to councils from the settlement agreed in 2012. However, in the consultation issued alongside the social housing Green Paper we consulted councils as to what other flexibilities we could provide to enable them to build more quickly. In March 2021, we announced a package of flexibilities, including allowing five years to spend receipts and for replacements to be delivered as shared ownership or first homes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred specifically to the requirement that the right-to-buy receipts should not fund more than 40% of the cost of replacement properties. The intention of this cap is to maximise the number of new homes that can be delivered using right-to-buy receipts, with councils adding their own resources to this source of funding. In the package of flexibilities announced in March 2021, the Government increased the proportion of a replacement property that can be funded using right-to-buy receipts from 30% to 40%. It also increased the time limit for spending receipts from three to five years. This set of reforms, combined with the abolition of the housing borrowing caps in 2018, gives councils substantially increased flexibilities to build these replacement homes.
Our ongoing reforms to the planning system as set out in the Levelling Up White Paper will not only enable more beautiful, sustainable houses to be built but will ensure that local communities are at the heart of planning. Our homes must be built in the right places. To this end, we need to make the most use of suitable brownfield land to meet housing needs and regenerate our high streets and town centres. This is why the government policy provides strong encouragement for the take-up of brownfield sites and expects local authorities to prioritise suitable brownfield land for development. The £1.8 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund will unlock up to 160,000 new homes on derelict and underused land. The funding will boost local areas by transforming disused sites and investing in vital infrastructure to help create vibrant communities for people to live and work in. This will be achieved while protecting our cherished green spaces.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the important work of Sir Oliver Letwin through his review of build-out. The Government acknowledge the conclusions of the Letwin review and agree that local authorities need more powers to support build-out. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which was introduced to Parliament on 11 May, will boost local authorities’ powers to manage development, ensuring that it works for communities as well as developers. The Bill will improve the system of locally-led development corporations to support local area plans for regeneration and growth and will include a range of important measures to accelerate the build-out of sites. It will replace the existing system for securing developer contributions with a new flat-rate infrastructure levy that will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current developer contribution regime, allowing local authorities to use the proceeds for providing the affordable housing and infrastructure that communities need. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that the levy will deliver at least as much, if not more, affordable housing than the current system of developer contributions. This will be secured through regulation and policy supported by the provisions in the Bill.
We are considering possible revisions to the NPPF to reflect wider changes to the planning system and will publish further details on this in due course. We are also testing innovative approaches to improving land value capture further through a government amendment which will allow a pilot of community land auctions. Participating piloting authorities will be able to invite landowners to submit a price at which they are willing to sell their land. Once that occurs, the authority will be able to consider the financial benefits of allocating land submitted in their local plan, and then auction the development rights where the land has been allocated. The LPA will be able to keep auction receipts to invest in infrastructure and affordable housing in its areas. I think we will discuss this a lot more when the LUR Bill comes to this House very shortly.
Our housing mission in the Levelling Up White Paper sets out that, by 2030, renters will have a secure path to ownership, with the number of first-time buyers increasing in all areas. Since spring 2010, over 800,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through government-backed schemes such as shared ownership and right to buy. In 2021, the annual first-time buyer numbers had reached a 20-year high at over 400,000. Our ongoing commitment to build new homes, including affordable homes, will support more households on to that ladder. Of course this is a difficult time for first-time buyers, which is why we are cutting stamp duty and delivering schemes such as first homes, which provides housing at a discount of at least 30%. We will continue to monitor the state of the mortgage market closely.
For those who bought homes only to find their experience of home ownership restricted by unfair leasehold practices, we are taking forward a programme of reform to improve the leasehold market. In 2022, we enacted the first part of legislative reforms: the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act. We intend to follow this up with further leasehold reforms later in this Parliament to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to buy their freehold, extend their leases, or take over management of their buildings. I will host an all-Peers round-table meeting to discuss leasehold reform on 6 December.
Across the private rented and social rented sectors, our levelling-up mission is to reduce the number of non-decent rented homes by 50% by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas. The private rented sector White Paper sets out a 12-point plan to provide a better deal for private renters, including abolishing Section 21 no-fault evictions and, in return, improving possession grounds for landlords. Legislating in this space remains a top priority for this Government, and, to return to the question of timing raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, yesterday, I say that we will bring forward legislation in this Parliament. We have also recently consulted on introducing a decent home standard in the PRS and are considering responses before setting out next steps.
In response to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on freezing rent, I say that the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls in the private rented sector to set the level of rent at the outset of a tenancy. Historical evidence suggests that this would discourage investment in the sector and lead to declining property standards as a result, which would not help landlords or tenants. Recent international examples also suggest that rent controls can have an inadvertently negative impact on the supply of housing and may encourage more illegal subletting.
The social rented sector is equally at the heart of our housing mission in this country. As the Chancellor announced in the other place as part of his Autumn Statement, we have set a 7% ceiling on social housing rent increases next year, saving the average tenant £200. Having carefully reviewed the responses from our consultation on rent caps, our decision strikes an appropriate balance between protecting social tenants from high rent increases and ensuring that social landlords are able to continue to invest in new and existing social housing and to provide decent homes and the services that tenants require.
The housing White Paper sets out a wide range of measures which together will ensure that residents live in safe and decent homes, are treated with fairness and respect, and have their problems quickly resolved. The Social Housing (Regulation) Bill is part of our programme to deliver on those White Paper commitments. As your Lordships know, it is a short but radical Bill: that is what the sector needs and tenants deserve. I am immensely proud to have recently taken it through this House as a crucial element of the Government’s response to the terrible Grenfell tragedy. The Regulator of Social Housing—the body responsible for regulating social housing in England—will be taking a new, proactive approach to regulating social housing landlords on the issues which matter most to tenants. The Bill will drive significant change in how social landlords behave, forcing them to focus on the needs of their tenants. Where they do not do this, they will be robustly held to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, also raised the issue of energy efficiency in social housing. We have committed to consulting on setting minimum energy-efficiency standards for the social rented sector within six months of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill receiving Royal Assent. It is right that we give landlords the opportunity to feed in on the approach, including how they manage this within the context of competing pressures. We have also secured more than £1 billion to the social housing decarbonisation fund to support landlords so far, with a total of £3.8 billion committed within this Parliament.
After the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, we are determined to learn the lessons of the past. We will ensure that residents of high-rise buildings are safe, accepting and implementing the findings of the Hackitt report. The Building Safety Act received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022, with ground-breaking reforms giving residents and home owners more powers and protections so that homes across the country are safer. It delivers far-reaching protections for qualifying leaseholders from the costs associated with remediating historical building safety defects and enables them to hold those responsible for building safety defects to account. The Act establishes three new bodies to provide effective oversight of the new regime: the building safety regulator, housed within the Health and Safety Executive, a national regulator of construction products, located in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and the new homes ombudsman. Many of the detailed provisions within the Act will be implemented through a significant programme of secondary legislation.
Across all our work, we are focused on transitioning to net zero, in line with the Government’s 2050 targets. In 2025, we will introduce the future homes standard, which will ensure that all new homes produce 75% fewer carbon emissions than under current regulations, and that they are net-zero ready. We are also consulting on options to mandate assessment of, and limits to, whole-life carbon impacts of new construction in 2023.
For existing homes, the Government are investing £12 billion in help-to-heat schemes to ensure that homes are warmer, cheaper to heat and more efficient. In England alone, the average home below the Government’s target energy performance certificate C rating will spend over £550 more than one at the threshold; in total, that is £8 billion wasted per year. Therefore, the Chancellor, in his Autumn Statement today, announced a new national ambition to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030 against 2021 levels.
I will go through this as quickly as possible, if noble Lords are happy for me to; they may want me to stop. I will just talk about homelessness and rough sleeping, because it is important. We are taking action to ensure that everyone has access to a good home. In the levelling-up White Paper, we set out our commitment to tackle homelessness and end rough sleeping for good. This is why we are investing £2 billion over the next three years into homelessness and rough sleeping.
Again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for securing today’s debate. Utilising the strategy set out in the levelling-up White Paper, and our extensive policy programme, this Government are committed to addressing the challenges faced by households across tenures of housing in England. I look forward to working with noble Lords to deliver a housing system that works for everyone.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very thorough response, much of which we need to take away and concentrate on. I appreciate the detailed way in which she sought to respond to the questions raised and the comments made.
I will not go over the different contributions that have been made. It has been a quite illuminating debate. It is intriguing that each of us has come forward with rather different perspectives on the market. However, there was a considerable degree of consensus about the major problem that faces this country, which is that we are just not building enough homes. I remind the Minister, in her optimism about building new social homes, of the 4.2 million people who need them.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for her wonderful and passionate maiden speech, which added considerable lustre to the debate and gave us a wonderful picture of somebody growing up not just in a city but with a city, and of all the lessons that were learned and the amazing contribution that she has made to her local government area over so many years. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
G20
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G20 summit in Indonesia, but first I would like to address Russia’s missile strikes on Ukraine this week.
On the very day that I and others confronted the Russian Foreign Minister across the G20 summit table with the brutality of his country’s actions, and on the very day that President Zelensky addressed the G20 with a plan to stop the war, Russia launched over 80 separate missile strikes on Ukraine. The targets were innocent people and civilian infrastructure; the aim, to cast the population into darkness and cold. Once again, Russia has shown its barbarity and given the lie to any claim that it is interested in peace.
During the bombardment of Ukraine on Tuesday, an explosion took place in eastern Poland. The investigation into this incident is ongoing and it has our full support. As we have heard the Polish and American Presidents say, it is possible that the explosion was caused by a Ukrainian munition which was deployed in self-defence. Whether or not this proves to be the case, no blame can be placed on a country trying to defend itself against such a barrage. The blame belongs solely to Russia.
I spoke to President Duda yesterday to express my sympathy and pledge our solidarity. I also spoke to President Zelensky on a joint call with Prime Minister Trudeau to express our continued support, and I met my G7 and NATO counterparts at the sidelines of the G20. We will help our Polish allies to conclude their investigation and we will continue to stand with Ukraine in the face of Russia’s criminal aggression.
The Bali summit took place amidst the worst global economic crisis since 2008. The G20 was created to grip challenges like this, but today’s crisis is different, because it is being driven by a G20 member. By turning off the gas taps and choking off the Ukrainian grain supply, Russia has severely disrupted global food and energy markets. The economic shockwaves will ripple around the world for years to come. So, together with the other responsible members of the G20, we are delivering a decisive response. Almost all G20 members called out Russia’s actions, declaring that
‘today’s era must not be one of war.’
We will work together to uphold international law and the United Nations charter, and we will act to protect our collective economic security. The G20 agreed to use all available tools to support the global economy and ensure financial stability. That means international financial institutions mobilising more resources to support developing countries, it means continuing to call out those who exploit their lending power to create debt traps for emerging economies, and it means tackling the causes of rising inflation head-on, including by delivering fiscal sustainability.
We pledged our support for the UN-brokered deal to keep grain shipments moving in the Black Sea. I am pleased to say that that deal has now been renewed. Two-thirds of Ukraine’s wheat goes to developing countries. With famine looming, it is desperately needed and Russia must uphold its part of this deal.
We agreed action to improve energy security by accelerating the transition to clean energy. We launched a new Just Energy Transition Partnership with Indonesia, which will unlock billions in private finance for new green energy infrastructure. Finally, we committed to maintain free markets and free trade and to reform the World Trade Organization.
Yesterday, I held my first meeting with President Biden. We pledged to redouble our support for Ukraine and to continue deepening our co-operation, including on energy security and managing the challenges posed by China. I met Prime Minister Modi, where we reviewed progress on our forthcoming free trade agreement. I discussed our accession to the CPTPP with the Prime Ministers of Japan, Canada and Australia, and I met with almost every other leader at the summit, with the exception of Russia. In each of those discussions, there was a shared determination to restore stability, deliver long-term growth and drive a better future—one where no single country has the power to hold us back. In just a few moments, my right honourable friend the Chancellor will build on those international foundations when he sets out the Autumn Statement, putting our economy back on to a positive trajectory and restoring our fiscal sustainability.
By being strong abroad we strengthen our resilience at home, so we will continue to support Ukraine and to stand up for the rule of law and the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination. We will build a global economy that is more secure, stable and resilient, because that is what the gravity of the moment demands. That is how we will ensure that our country emerges from this crisis stronger than it was before. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. I think it helps the discussions of the House when we are able to have Statements on the same day so the House can hear the Statement and respond, and I think he feels the same.
I entirely agree with the comments he made. As world leaders met in Bali, the incident in Poland was a stark reminder of the effect of the destabilising influence and effect of Putin’s war in Ukraine. I entirely concur with his comments about the terrible explosion in Poland. With two people killed, we extend our condolences, and I think the whole House will agree, to all those affected. We also admire our NATO allies for their calm and level-headed response to this at such a tense time.
We on these Benches, and indeed across the House, are committed to the principle of collective security. An attack on the sovereignty of any NATO country is an attack on us all. Sadly, though, as we await the results of the investigation into the incident, Putin’s illegal invasion continues to have further tragic and devastating consequences. Russian forces are being pushed further from Kherson but, in response, Moscow is now directing attacks on to civilians and civilian infrastructure, with all the consequences that brings both for the current citizens but also for the future reconstruction of Ukraine.
I am pleased that the leaders’ declaration confirmed that the G20 recognised the immense human suffering in Ukraine, but we also understand and appreciate that that forum is not the place where we can resolve the issue of the invasion. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about discussions that were held with allies about extending support for Ukraine, including the issue of air defences.
On the Black Sea grain shipments deal, we welcome some of the reports that are emerging of an extension. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything more about that today or if he is able to outline the Government’s assessment of Russian compliance with the agreement that has been reached.
I want to say something about international development. I think the whole House will hope that progress on grain exports could help to calm the issue of global food price increases, which is threatening even greater hardship across the developing world. Famine is now looming for many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. I was pleased to hear the Minister make reference to the international institutions’ role in mobilising resources, but I have to say it is unfortunate that the Government have abandoned the global leadership role that we have had on international development. We were well known for that for many years. He will be aware that during the G20 talks the Government cut support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is in direct contrast to our allies, including the US, France, Germany, Japan and Spain, which have all stepped up their commitments by 30%. The timing of the Government’s announcement was unfortunate, to say the very least, and I wonder whether any of our counterparts in other countries raised the future of the Global Fund, given that the announcement was made at the same time as the G20 was ongoing.
On international development, as well as on security and the global economy, the value of the G20 is that it brings together leaders with interests that have not always aligned. That introduces opportunities but also provides challenges. For years, government policy on China has been marked by inconsistency and sometimes quite screeching U-turns. The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that the Prime Minister discussed China with President Biden. Can he say anything more about what kind of discussions they were? Further to that, can he confirm when the Government now plan to publish the China strategy that we are waiting for?
I want to touch on trade, particularly the meeting with Prime Minister Modi. India is the world’s largest democracy. There are strong cultural and family ties with the UK. Clearly a trade agreement would bring new opportunities for both partners, but it has been cast into doubt by irresponsible comments from the Home Secretary on immigration from India. It is quite shocking when two arms of government are not singing from the same hymn sheet on such issues. Her comments could be extremely damaging, as well as being unwarranted and unhelpful generally. Although I am pleased that progress towards that trade agreement was reviewed, we are now long past Diwali, which was the Government’s previous deadline for achieving such an agreement. Is the Minister able to tell us whether there is a new target date for completion of the Indian trade deal? Is there any sign or sight of our reaching a conclusion?
Unfortunately, the Government’s difficulty in finding agreement with India reflects broader issues with trade policy. I am sure the Minister has seen the scathing comments from George Eustice about the Australian trade deal, which were rather surprising given that he was a Cabinet Minister when it was negotiated. Meanwhile, the pledge to have 80% of UK trade covered by free trade agreements by the end of 2022 seems a distant prospect. It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the Minister could tell the House today—if not, I am happy for him to write to me and put a copy in the Library—what percentage of UK trade is currently covered by FTAs.
It is now being reported that a trade deal with the US was not even discussed by the Prime Minister when he met President Biden, which seems rather concerning. Is there any prospect of seeing a trade deal with the US before the end of this Parliament?
In conclusion, this summit took place against a backdrop of greater instability and economic challenge than any other G20 forum. I agree with the Statement on how serious the shockwaves that have come from the Russian invasion of Ukraine are, but that is only part of the story as far as the UK is concerned. It does not explain why we are doing so much worse on economic growth, and have higher inflation and greater inequality, than other countries with similar economies. We may see today what impact the Budget has and we will discuss that later. The Government’s actions and responsibility play into part of that as well.
Recent events in Poland are quite a warning for us that Putin’s reckless invasion of Ukraine has implications for wider international security. It reminds us of just how important our international alliances and relationships are.
All this reinforces that we must stand with our NATO allies and our friends in Ukraine in their defence against brutal aggression. But now, perhaps more than ever before, we have to stand up and commit wholeheartedly to multilateralism and the international rule of law as the guarantor—the only guarantor—of a safer and more secure future.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for delivering the Statement. I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Newby, who cannot be here this evening. I welcome the outcome of the G20 meeting, with its near unanimous support for Ukraine, our Polish allies and condemnation of the illegal actions of Russia. The determination to uphold international law and the UN charter has our full support, as does the commitment to collective economic security.
If a deal to sustain grain shipments moving in the Black Sea can be secured this weekend, this will have special significance, at least for the developing world. The recognition by the Government that our own economic stability depends on a firm international foundation is welcome. The Statement says:
“By being strong abroad we strengthen our resilience at home.”
The problem is that everything that the respective Governments of the past six years have done has been to weaken this position abroad, and it is not surprising that this weakening is reflected in our own intolerable domestic economic situation, made worse by the last Conservative Government’s own actions.
The missile incident in Poland should perhaps remind us of our history: an attack on Poland led us into the Second World War, and, for the next two years, Churchill spent his life trying to ensure that we did not stand alone. Polish troops were some of the bravest who supported us then. This should demonstrate to us that, whatever happens in Europe, whether it is a security issue, energy shortages, economic problems or the impact of climate change, this all impacts on us as a nation. Every day, our sovereignty is weaker by being outside the European Councils. Gatherings such as the G20 and the G7 are actually now very important to us because we have fewer opportunities each year to meet world leaders. They are of course even more important to us now that we are outside the EU, where we had so many opportunities to meet leaders of our neighbouring countries in Europe to get to know how we could work with them, which we were very good at doing.
I want to ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, there is lots of talk about defence issues arising from the conflict in Ukraine, and that is obviously our focus, but are we and other nations prepared to support Ukraine economically as well as defensively? Will we be supporting its move into the European single market, and what involvement will we have in the equivalent of a Marshall plan for that country, either before or certainly when the war has ended?
Secondly, there seems to have been little discussion at the G20 on the problems of population growth across the globe—particularly in Africa, where half the growth is now expected to occur, according to UN projections—and its implications for water, food and migration pressures on Europe in particular. It needs international attention, particularly the line from Lagos to Shanghai, where resources are needed to counter the growing pressures of population growth and the shortage of world resources.
Finally, once again, there is a lot of attention to the discussions with President Biden on the edges of the G20 meeting. I suspect that his position and probable involvement in any celebrations in March on the Northern Ireland peace agreement were discussed. So is March now the new deadline for sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that he makes this visit, and was it discussed?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, a range of questions have been raised. I begin by expressing my sincere sense of gratitude, on behalf of the Government, to both noble Lords who have spoken for the sense of solidarity they expressed, both in support of Ukraine and in the face of the quite appalling aggression by the Putin regime. I can say, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer said in the other place, that “we stand as one” on this. There has also been very powerful affirmation of that in this House, for which I am extremely grateful. I join with the noble Baroness opposite in offering particular personal condolences from this House to those Polish citizens whose loved ones were killed as a result of what happened, as well as to those who suffered in the latest atrocious bombardment by Russia of Ukraine.
It was provident that a number of important NATO elements were there at the G20, and, as the noble Baroness said, it was possible for them to gather, make an assessment and reassert the sense of NATO support for Ukraine. I share the satisfaction expressed by the noble Baroness in the calmness, good sense and measured way in which NATO responded to what was obviously a deliberate provocation. It is not the first time that Russia has done this sort of thing during an international conference.
On the attacks on civilians, we know that, given the climate in the central part of that part of eastern Europe in winter, this is frankly a despicable attempt to freeze people to death and cause suffering by the weapon of cold.
On help to Ukraine, of course this Government will continue to give support, in both military and financial terms. This year we have given £2.3 billion of military support to Ukraine; we are training Ukrainian armed forces as part of our plan to train 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers every 120 days. Eight other countries have signed up to our programme, and we are providing further military aid, including another 1,000 surface-to-air missiles and more than 25,000 extreme cold winter kits for troops. That is on top of past packages.
I so much agree with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said about grain supplies and food security. There are ongoing discussions about the Black Sea grain initiative. The simplest way to stabilise global food and energy prices would be for Russia to end its illegal and unjustified war. The most immediate important step would be for Russia to renew the Black Sea grain initiative and stop targeting attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. The UK and its allies are working tirelessly through diplomatic channels and help from President Erdoğan and others. We have made steps forward already this week and, as the noble Lord expressed, I hope that, as the week goes on, we will see a return towards normal operation of that agreement.
We need an end to the war, but the noble Lord is quite right that we need to tackle famine and reduce world hunger. This Government are doing a lot bilaterally in that respect—for example, in our support for Somalia. We are committed to protecting children in the countries most affected by food insecurity. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to give very close attention to famine relief and support.
The noble Baroness asked about the Global Fund. It is true that she made some criticisms; on the other hand, we have confirmed that we will commit £1 billion to the Global Fund for its work over the next three years, which we believe will help save more than 1 million lives at risk from deadly diseases. We are the third-largest donor to the Global Fund; we have invested £4.4 billion to date to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria around the world. The pledge comes at a time of significant pressures on the UK’s aid budget, with domestic budgetary constraints, famine risk in the Horn of Africa, where we need support, and conflict in Ukraine.
The noble Baroness asked about China. Yes, the challenges posed by China are systemic and long term. China is a country with fundamentally different values from ours, and its leadership is intent on reshaping the international order. A precondition for any part of our relationship will obviously be our national security; we will continue to call out human rights abuses, such as the appalling issues in Xinjiang, which have often been discussed in this House. As for whether our IR refresh will designate China a threat and so on, I cannot give a timescale, for which the noble Baroness asked, on a specific China strategy. We want to continue dialogue with China, but I assure her that we have our eyes open on that point.
On India, we have achieved our ambition to conclude the majority of the talks towards an FTA by the end of October this year. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the other place earlier, there is a lot of interest in the various aspects of the deal, and the quality of deal is more important than the date when it is signed. However, negotiators continue to press ahead to secure a deal that is fair, reciprocal and will deliver for the UK economy—and, as in any reciprocal deal, also for India. The Prime Minister had a very positive meeting with Prime Minister Modi.
As far as the United States is concerned, the Prime Minister had a good meeting with President Biden. At this short notice I have not had the full debrief of what was said in their personal conversations, but there was a strong commitment to work together, both in terms of Ukraine and the relationship with China. It is true that the United States is not focused on free trade agreements generally at the moment, but we stand ready to engage with it. The US is our largest trade partner and bilateral trade with it is worth £234 billion annually.
I do not agree with Mr Eustice about the Australia trade agreement. Our landmark trade agreement with Australia will unlock £10.4 billion of additional bilateral trade, support economic growth in every part of Britain and deliver for 15,000 businesses already exporting to Australia. We will remember UK farmers in every aspect of our relationship as we go forward.
On Ukraine joining the EU single market, I cannot answer at this Dispatch Box. That remains a matter for our friends in the European Union.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my noble friend Lady Smith’s question directly as to whether a trade deal with the United States was raised in the meeting with President Biden. Will he confirm that it was not raised?
On the Ukraine issue, where we all stand in solidarity in this House, there have been two alarming developments. Was the use of Iranian drones by Russia in Ukraine raised and is there any international action that could be taken which might limit the capacity of Iran to provide assistance to Russia?
Another issue that was not raised in the Statement at all was a further strengthening of sanctions, particularly against key Russian individuals, too many of whom still appear to be—how can one put it?—disporting themselves on the international scene at the moment. Could there be a further strengthening of sanctions? Since President Putin appears to be indicating that he is intent on creating a hard winter for the people of Ukraine, maybe we should be creating a rather harder winter for those owners of Russian assets in London who have alliances with the Putin regime.
Lord True (Con)
I am sorry, but I did say to the noble Baroness that I could not give a detailed readout of what went on in the personal conversation between President Biden and the Prime Minister. I cannot give a speculative answer in this House on something so important. As soon as I get information on that point, I will of course supply it.
The noble Lord makes a very important point about Iran. Obviously, Iran is not present at the table. We continue to make very strong representations to Iran on a number of fronts—its international responsibilities, its responsibilities not to support terrorism and, indeed, terroristic violence in any place, and its atrocious abuses of human rights within Iran.
As far as sanctions on Russians are concerned, this is something that the Government constantly keep under review. We have designated more than 1,200 individuals already and over 120 entities, and frozen the assets of 19 Russian banks with assets of £940 billion since the invasion.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I was encouraged to hear that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister affirmed that we will not sacrifice quality for speed when it comes to trade deals. Obviously, the Minister has emphasised again that today. Can he give us any more detail about G20 discussions with Prime Minister Modi? In particular, I note that there are substantial synergies when it comes to the UK and Indian life sciences sectors, some of the most productive in both our economies. This goes from research and regulatory collaboration to establishing much more secure medicine supply chains to having excellent export opportunities for some of our most innovative healthcare companies.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend makes some very important points. It is no secret that the Prime Minister considers this relationship to be extremely important, and my noble friend is quite right to say that it goes beyond our aspiration for a free trade deal. There was a good personal meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr Modi, and we are deeply committed to strengthening our comprehensive strategic partnership and to discussing collaboration across all five pillars of the UK-India road map, and not only on the bilateral relationship but on aspirations within the Indo-Pacific. Discussions on digital and intellectual property matters are part of that. We are very confident that this relationship will go forward very positively.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government support President Macron’s apparent intention to persuade his Chinese opposite number to mediate with Russia, to try to ease the conflict in Ukraine and possibly pave the way for peace talks? If the Government do support him, what action will they take to manifest that support?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness in her wisdom will know, concluding a war and bringing warring parties together is a very difficult and delicate matter, not all of which can be conducted in public. China certainly has a potentially important diplomatic role, and it has influence. Obviously, we will use our diplomatic influence with China and in other places to lead it in a direction that would help to secure peace. It was positive that the G20, including China, made the very clear declaration that nuclear war—and the threat of nuclear war—is absolutely inadmissible. That is a long way from where the noble Baroness wishes to get, but I assure her that we will continue to engage with all parties, including President Macron, in efforts to secure an end to this terrible conflict. In the interim, we will be unstinting in our support for Ukraine.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Further to his answer to my noble friend, I say that summits are of course tremendously important, because you meet people—and that is particularly important for a Prime Minister who is new on the international scene. Yet, as I understand it, an unfortunate casualty of the incident involving the missile in Poland seems to have been a planned meeting between the Prime Minister and Xi Jinping that was not able to take place. Can the Minister confirm if that is the case? If it is, what arrangements might the UK be making to bring about a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of China? After all, we are both members of the Security Council, and it is just as important for our Prime Minister to meet President Xi Jinping as it is for him to have met President Biden.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Viscount makes a fair point. It is a fact, as is attested, that the G20 summit was interrupted by the unfortunate events in Poland. Certainly, both President Xi and the Prime Minister were present at the discussions. The reality is that—as was implicit in what the noble Viscount said—none of the global challenges that faces us, whether the global economy, the impact of war in Ukraine on food and energy security that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, reminded us of, climate change or global health can be addressed without co-ordinated action by all the world’s major economies, which include China. The noble Viscount is quite right to say that we are both permanent members of the UN Security Council; we need a frank and constructive relationship and we will go forward in that way. There has to be frankness about China’s failures, as well as encouragement about China’s positive impact.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip for arranging for this Statement to be repeated so soon after it was made in the other place; that is very helpful. I also add my total support for Ukraine and its president. No one is perfect, no country is perfect and mistakes happen, but Ukraine and President Zelensky are fighting for democracy for all of us and they should have our 100% support.
Turning to what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, it is a pity that this meeting took place at a time when our commitment to the international development effort has been reduced so substantially. I had the privilege of being one of the first Ministers when we set up the Department for International Development. The Labour Government were very proud of it indeed, and it is a great pity that it has been incorporated into the FCO and our achievement of getting to 0.7% has been cut back so much.
I want to ask a specific question. The Leader of the House, like the rest of us, will have heard the speech made by the head of MI5, Ken McCallum—a really chilling speech in which he warned about the co-operation between Iran, Russia and China. He made some very interesting football analogies, about sharing people between teams. He painted a really frightening prospect. Will the Leader of the House, as a member of the Cabinet, make sure that the warnings from the head of MI5 are taken very seriously and that action is taken on his advice?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course, the advice of our security services, which are of unparalleled quality—I praise their ability and their deep patriotism—is taken extremely seriously by the Prime Minister and indeed the whole Cabinet. I thank the noble Lord again for what he said about Ukraine: it reinforces the message going out from this House and the other place that we are absolutely united.
I acknowledge that some disappointment has been expressed, but I repeat that we have confirmed that we will commit £1 billion—£1,000 million—over the next three years to the global fund. We are the third largest donor, and we will continue to be one of the largest global aid donors. We spent more than £11 billion last year on overseas aid and the Government have already made a £1 billion pledge, as I said, to the global fund. We are also providing additional resources, as was made clear in the Statement today, of £1 billion in 2022-23 and £1.5 billion in 2023-24 to support Ukrainian and Afghan refugees. A lot of money is being committed, but difficult decisions do have to be taken.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on a far-ranging series of meetings at the G20. In my mind they certainly set the spirit for future co-operation, but I will turn briefly to trade. The noble Lord will not be aware of this, but there is an incoming Indian delegation in town today. I have just hosted a meeting upstairs, of which the upshot was that we will form a British-India chamber of commerce—covering all India, broken down by its four regions—with a focus on mid-size SMEs and not just the large organisations that are so often the focus when there is dialogue between India and the UK.
The Commonwealth was raised today. Will the Government consider a pan-Commonwealth free trade agreement template that can be tweaked by member nation states—bar the two that are members of the European Union, which would be excluded? Will they drive this initiative forward and discuss it with Commonwealth states? The idea was put to me by the Americans, who wish to join a free trade agreement with the Commonwealth, which would include the UK and might break the dialogue impasse with the US.
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his contribution in sustaining and developing this vital relationship with India, which we have discussed and other noble Lords have referred to. The Commonwealth is of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom; we value all those relationships and look forward to the imminent state visit of the President of South Africa. It will bring great joy to many people who have watched the travails of that country in my lifetime to see that happen. I note the noble Viscount’s wider point about the Commonwealth, but I cannot commit to going in that direction from this Dispatch Box.