House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
We are committed to bringing forward a consultation in the coming months on proposals to reform our approach to economic regulation in the utilities sector. This will include the outcomes of our review of the regulators’ statutory duties.
John Penrose
I welcome the bright and shiny new ministerial team to their roles, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the new broom, to get this moving a lot faster. Some economic regulators are too expensive, too slow and too soft, so could we use the upcoming competition Bill to refocus them on sharper competition so that consumers get better deals and fewer rip-offs, because otherwise we will miss the best opportunity for years?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is quite right. As set out in our policy paper, the duties and functions of Ofwat, Ofcom and Ofgem have significantly expanded since privatisation. I agree that the Bill would enable us to move more quickly, and I would like to work with him to see what we can do to improve regulation more broadly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response to this important question. All our constituents are squeezed due to rising prices over which they have no control. In the light of her response, and in anticipation of her correspondence with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I hope that we can increase accountability and reduce prices, and thereby reduce inflation, which will help our constituents.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is right that our constituents are at the end of what the regulators are doing, so our reforms should build on their strengths and continue to reinforce the UK as a leading global destination for investment in utilities infrastructure, to the long-term benefit of all our constituents and consumers.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government are rightly proud of the record of UK companies when it comes to corporate responsibility. The UK is home to 10 of the world’s top 100 companies, ranked by social responsibility. These standards are reflected in the UK being considered by business leaders to be the world’s third most important country for investment.
Dan Carden
The Government have recently taken action on deforestation in supply chains through the Environment Act 2021, and they have made progress on regulating British companies overseas through the Bribery Act 2010 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but I want them to go further. The Cerrejón coalmine in La Guajira, Colombia, has been responsible for widespread, persistent, harmful pollution, and for the diverting and polluting of many rivers, causing the displacement of more than 20 indigenous communities. The companies involved have ignored local court rulings. What more can be done to ensure that businesses registered in the UK uphold human rights and do not commit environmental damage? Will the Minister look again at this case?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises an important case. The UK is a signatory to the OECD’s declaration on international investment and multinational enterprises, a voluntary set of standards intended to promote responsible business conduct worldwide. My Department is the UK’s national contact point on these guidelines, allowing anyone who thinks there are problems to make a complaint, which will then be investigated. I am very happy to work with him on that basis.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Will my hon. Friend update the House on any recent discussions that he or his Department have had with the Home Office on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill?
Kevin Hollinrake
I regularly meet Home Office colleagues, including this week to make sure this legislation is fit for purpose and will do what it says on the tin: tackle economic crime.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I wish everybody a happy Ramadan on our first day of fasting.
We are moving towards a world powered by critical minerals. We need lithium, cobalt and graphite to make batteries for electric cars, and we need silicon and tin for our electronics. I am pleased that we recently published our “Critical Minerals Refresh.” This strategy will accelerate the growth of UK capabilities, collaborate with international partners and enhance international markets.
Mrs Murray
Cornwall is known for its mining—some people even define a mine as a hole in the ground with a Cornishman at the bottom. What efforts is the Department making to ensure that we make the most of our home-grown mineral security?
Ms Ghani
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of Cornwall’s mining heritage and the world-renowned Camborne School of Mines. This is why we are backing Cornish lithium and geothermal engineering, through the Getting Building fund and the automotive transformation fund, which are collaborating to build a zero-carbon lithium extraction plant at an existing site in Cornwall. I very much look forward to visiting it in the near future.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The Minister knows that the steel industry is an important customer for critical minerals in this country, so will she confirm for the House the status of the Steel Council in her Department and whether it is actively meeting?
Ms Ghani
I served with the hon. Gentleman on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for many years. He will be very familiar with the fact that I meet the steel sector and the unions, and I have all the regular meetings, including those with the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The meetings are most definitely taking place.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I join the Minister in wishing the whole House a happy Ramadan.
It is great finally to see the critical minerals strategy, but, as the Minister indicated in her answer, long-term, durable access to minerals is also dependent on our wider strategic trade policy. The Government have failed in their objective of ensuring that 80% of our trade is conducted under free trade agreements. In addition, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that our exports are projected to fall by 6.6% next year. How does she propose to integrate her critical minerals strategy with our wider trade policy? How much will that 6.6% fall in exports cost the UK economy in cash terms?
Ms Ghani
I only recently published the critical minerals refresh and I was expecting some sort of positive response, given how it is integrated internationally; it deals with the threats of China and works with the Inflation Reduction Act 2022 in the United States. But of course the Opposition use any reason to dampen a positive step forward for all of our manufacturing sector across the country. UK exports to Europe amounted to £386.9 billion in the four quarters to the end of 2022, which was an increase of 25%—I think that is an increase, not a decrease.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that growing the economy and creating better-paid jobs is one of our top priorities, and the Government are working with industry across the UK to achieve that. We have set out clear plans for prioritising technology sectors, advanced manufacturing, financial services and creative industries, and this includes our investor road maps. In particular, the Chancellor has announced 12 investment zones across the UK, which could benefit from £80 million of interventions over the next five years.
Mary Glindon
The Government have not published an industrial strategy since 2017 and, as a result, the UK now has the lowest level of business investment in the G7. So what is the Minister’s plan to encourage business investment in the UK, given that the Government have not even published an industrial strategy?
Ms Ghani
I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood exactly what we are doing. We have industrial strategies, be it for the automotive sector, the aviation sector, the maritime sector, or science and tech—that one was published just yesterday. This is not just about publishing strategies; it is also about delivering, which is what we are cracking on with and doing. As for UK investment, we are the leading country for start-up capital outside the United States, and just a few weeks ago we attracted £20 billion into tech—this is twice as much as France and Germany.
Mick Whitley
While the EU and the US are investing billions in accelerating their transition to net zero, including through the Inflation Reduction Act, the lack of a robust green industrial strategy in Britain is leaving us stranded at the back of the pack. Does the Minister share my frustration that the Chancellor’s Budget did so little to set out a convincing strategy for green growth? Do the Government intend to make the public wait for Labour to win the next general election before a world-leading green industrial strategy that drives private investment in green industries and establishes the UK as a clean energy superpower is brought before this House?
Ms Ghani
I am sorry to dampen the hon. Gentleman’s ambitions about winning the next general election, but we do indeed have a strategy to deal with decarbonising our economy. We are supporting research and development to help decrease our reliance on gas and electricity and deal with long-term energy security: we have £380 million for the offshore wind sector, £385 million for nuclear R&D, and £120 million for future nuclear enabling. We have a green industrial strategy and we are keen to ensure that we deliver it right across the country, for all of our communities.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
People in Scunthorpe, Rotherham and Port Talbot know how important steel is for their communities. We Labour Members understand how important it is, for communities and for the green transition. The UK is the only G20 country in which steel production is falling, but when asked about the survival of this strategically important sector, the Business Secretary said:
“Nothing is ever a given.”
Is that because the British steel industry is not safe in her hands?
Ms Ghani
I do not know where the hon. Member got that quote from, but the British steel industry is very safe in our hands. Let me explain why. There has been over £800 million of support for energy costs, and over £1.5 billion to support competitive funds to ensure that the sector can decarbonise. We have done a huge amount of work with our steel sector. Colleagues from across the House will agree that in every meeting, whether it is with the unions or the sector, we are on the side of the steel sector and steelworkers, including when challenging commercial decisions are taken.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for the fantastic job she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. I met the Post Office leadership this week to reiterate our commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the post office network. We have funded the network to the tune of £2.5 billion over the last 10 years, and have set access criteria to ensure that vital services remain within local reach of our citizens.
Marion Fellows
I thank the Minister for his kind words. Last month, London Economics issued a report showing that the Post Office has a greater economic impact on the UK than Heathrow airport, with three in 10 small and medium-sized enterprises using it at least once a week. The Minister has said that he will invest lots of money in the post office network, but could he also look at “drop and collect” locations? They have a Post Office lozenge, but they are not the properly functioning post offices that most Members in this House would expect.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Drop and collect locations offer important services for our citizens, and can be counted towards the commitment to having 11,500 branches. Having said that, the access criteria overlaid on that commitment ensure that branches offering core services, including the sale of mail products, access to cash, and banking and bill payment facilities, remain within 3 miles of 99% of our population.
Patrick Grady
The report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) referred found that the social value delivered by the Post Office is 16.5 times greater than the financial input it receives from the Government, so will the Minister carry out an analysis of how additional investment in the post office network will allow it to continue to grow, so that it can help our communities and small businesses to grow and develop?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a very good point. We are working all the time with the Post Office—as I said, there was a meeting earlier this week. Around half of its 11,500 branches are in rural areas. They are hugely important to our local communities, as the hon. Gentleman says. The Government’s funding for the network helps to ensure the viability of rural branches. Of course, this will always be work in progress. We are keen to make sure that the facilities are there for our communities.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish Ramadan Mubarak to all those who today mark the beginning of the holiest period in the Islamic year?
The Minister will be aware that the model of sub-post offices is based on the expectation that most of them will be run by small, semi-independent or independent retail businesses. Those businesses are under desperate strain for a number of reasons, some of them within the Government’s control and some not. The people who run these businesses tell me that they are put off the possibility of taking on the responsibility for a sub-post office because it is now more a drag on the business than a benefit. What steps is he taking to review the business model on which sub-post offices operate? It is quite clearly not fit for purpose, and we are getting to crisis point. If it is not changed soon, we will lose even more post offices.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The model of a post office is evolving to a more diversified approach, but it is important that remuneration is fair and makes post offices sustainable. I was pleased to see that in August 2022 some improvements were made to remuneration. I appreciate that they may not have gone as far as some might wish, but nevertheless we want to see a sustainable network and make sure that our sub-postmasters are fairly remunerated.
Peter Grant
In an hour or two we will hear the latest update on the Horizon compensation scheme. Has the Minister made an assessment of how much damage that scandal has done and is continuing to do to the willingness of businesspeople to take on responsibility for running a sub-post office, given how severely badly treated, and indeed betrayed, so many of their potential colleagues have been in the past?
Kevin Hollinrake
Again, that is a very fair point. It was a horrendous scandal, and the first thing we need to do is properly compensate the victims. Alongside that there is an inquiry going on, headed by Sir Wyn Williams. It is important that we find out exactly what went wrong and who was responsible, and where possible hold those people to account. I think that will restore some measure of confidence to those who have been subject to such disgraceful mistreatment.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Supporting Ukraine is a Government priority. On Monday, I signed the UK-Ukraine digital trade agreement, Ukraine’s first ever digital trade deal, guaranteeing access to the UK’s financial services sector, which is crucial for their reconstruction efforts.
Jack Lopresti
My right hon. Friend’s Department has this week published a guide to doing business in Ukraine. Can she outline what this industry guidance sets out and how businesses can get further information if they need it?
Kemi Badenoch
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the guide to doing business in Ukraine that my Department published. It provides an overview of the Ukrainian market, including setting out Ukraine’s reconstruction needs and the expected financing and procurement routes for reconstruction projects. It is accompanied by information on the business environment, trading agreements between our countries and logistical guidance. The information is intended to help businesses considering working in and with Ukraine to understand how their market works and encourage industry to increase trade with Ukraine.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Maybe one of the best ways to assist in increasing trade with Ukraine is to limit the opportunities for the Russian Federation to access Scottish limited partnerships. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is still time to improve and strengthen the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to limit them?
Kemi Badenoch
In co-ordination with our allies, we have implemented the most severe economic sanctions ever imposed on any major economy and will maintain pressure on the Russian regime to secure peace. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with more detail about what he is referring to, I can look into it, but I assure him that this Government are doing everything we can within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to ensure the integrity of our economy and our allies.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I also took part in a very sobering visit to Ukraine last month and saw for myself the utter devastation of homes, businesses and infrastructure, with World Bank estimates of reconstruction costs now at some $630 billion. In spite of warm words, we still have no clear plan from the Government for the seizure of Russian state assets that could be used for the recovery of Ukrainian businesses and the reconstruction of Ukraine. Now that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, and with the United States, the European Union and Canada already looking to seize assets, can the Secretary of State tell us when the Government will set out how they will seize frozen Russian state assets?
Kemi Badenoch
As I said in my earlier answer, we have introduced the largest and most severe economic sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. We have sanctioned £20 billion, or 96%, of UK-Russia goods trade from 2021. Since the start of the invasion, UK goods imports from Russia have fallen by 99% and goods exports to Russia have fallen by 80%. Sanctions have sent Russia into a severe and sustained economic recession. Of course we will do all we can, but not all of the things the Opposition are asking for have easy mechanisms to deliver.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: they are illegal under international law and constitute an obstacle to peace and the two-state solution. As set out in Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidance on overseas business risk, there are clear risks to UK businesses related to economic and financial activities in the settlements and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity.
Ms Qaisar
Ramadan Mubarak to everyone celebrating.
In January, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the UK Government’s position on the illegality of Israeli settlements remains unchanged. If that is the case, will the UK Government finally suspend trade in goods and services between the UK and companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements? Do the Government understand that if not, the UK is essentially legitimising outposts that clearly violate international law?
Nigel Huddleston
The UK’s long-established position on the settlements is clear, as I outlined. The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, including the illegal settlements. For example, goods originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, are not entitled to tariff or trade preferences under either the agreement that the UK has with Israel or the agreement between the UK and the Palestinian authorities. I think it is important for the House to recognise that, of course, we also have an agreement with the Palestinian authorities.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
As somebody from a business background who also represents a rural area, I fully understand the importance of provision of a range of support to help small and microbusinesses to grow, including those in rural areas. Such businesses can find support through the free business support helpline, the 38 growth hubs across England, and the newly launched “Help to Grow” website, as well as through start-up loans. I note that 240 businesses on the Isle of Wight have benefited from start-up loans.
Bob Seely
I am delighted that that is the case. I want to tie this question into previous comments about post offices. Some microbusinesses and small businesses are incredibly reliant on post offices and sub-post offices. My sub-postmasters—Andy Smith in Ventnor was the last I spoke to, a couple of weeks ago—are increasingly concerned about the payments regime for sub-post officers. They have asked me to look into several specific instances, and I have written to the Minister about that. One area in which I think we could make improvements is banking payments. Banks are increasingly shutting down. Why? To save money. They pass the responsibilities for cash takes on to sub-postmasters, who do not get the remuneration—or anything like enough—to make it economically worthwhile. Will the Government look at the payments system, specifically in relation to banks?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is an interesting point. That relationship between banks and post offices is important for post offices and the banks, so we urge for fair terms to be struck. We also have concerns about the banking deposit limits that were introduced recently to cover money laundering issues. I am looking into that in great detail and at great pace to ensure that those issues are resolved, because they are limiting remuneration for postmasters, too. I am very happy to take that forward.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that my constituency has large rural areas and lots of farmers. Like many microbusinesses, they have difficulty in getting a bank account at all. Could he do something or talk to other colleagues about it? Social and trade enterprises cannot get a bank account. Could we get some action on that?
Kevin Hollinrake
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about specific instances, I will be very happy to look at them. There has been a significant increase in the number of new banks entering the marketplace, such as Starling Bank and Tide, so it is getting easier to open a bank account. I know that it is difficult with some of the larger banks. I am very happy to look into the specific instances that he refers to and see if we can help.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
In total, 22,109 companies entered insolvency in England and Wales in 2022, which was 57% higher than in 2021. There were lower rates of insolvency in 2020-21 because of the measures that we put in place to prevent the foreclosure of certain businesses. The trend over the last three years is pretty consistent with previous trends, but it is something that we are looking at very closely.
Christine Jardine
Notwithstanding that the trend may be consistent, in the last quarter of 2022, 313 companies in Scotland were insolvent. In my Edinburgh West constituency, companies are struggling, particularly those in the hospitality sector, in which there is high energy use. The Federation of Small Businesses has criticised the Budget by saying that there is nothing for businesses once the energy prices support ends at the end of next month—there is nothing for cashflow; there is nothing for tackling late payments. For the sake of small businesses, will the Government review their decision to take away support for businesses at the end of the month?
Kevin Hollinrake
The Government have not taken away support; they have replaced one scheme with another. The scheme we have now reflects the fact that wholesale prices have come down significantly since the peak between July and December last year. Of course, we are concerned about businesses that are suffering, particularly those that entered into contracts between July and December on fixed rates that last up to a year. We are working with Ofgem and suppliers to see what can be done to ensure that those businesses are not unfairly treated.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the tax cut for business worth £25 billion in the Chancellor’s Budget will benefit national and international businesses in the new powerhouse city of Southend such as Olympus KeyMed and ESSLAB, incentivising investment, boosting growth and delivering more jobs not just in Southend but across the UK?
Kevin Hollinrake
What an excellent question—I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In previous Budgets, the Chancellor has set the annual investment allowance effectively for SMEs at £1 million; that is permanent policymaking. He has now introduced full expensing across the piece, which, as she says, costs around £9 billion a year. We are the only country in the developed world, to my knowledge, that has done full expensing across the board in that way, and it will be a massive boost to business investment, not least in Southend.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Our great British businesses are being let down by 13 years of Tory failure, with little to help but sticking-plaster policies. The Minister may not be aware, but insolvency numbers are at their highest level in four years, which is perhaps no surprise when we look at this Government’s record on small businesses, with Help to Grow: Digital ditched, energy bill support slashed and business investment the lowest in the G7. It is no wonder that the Federation of Small Businesses says that the Budget has left many businesses feeling “short-changed”. It is clear that for this Tory Government, small businesses are an afterthought, so will the Minister follow where Labour leads—reform business rates, boost skills, make Brexit work and make Britain the best place to start and grow a business?
Kevin Hollinrake
I wish I could say I was surprised that the hon. Lady is once again talking Britain down. The reality is that UK growth since 2010 has been the third fastest in the G7. The private sector is now bigger than it was pre-pandemic. Private sector growth has been on trend in terms of other countries, with businesses growing. The FSB says that three out of five businesses are more resilient than they were pre-pandemic. Of course, we would all like to reform business rates, and it has been looked at on a number of occasions, but simply saying that we will scrap something that would cost £22 billion a year without putting in place a replacement for that funding is irresponsible. What will she do to replace business rates—[Interruption.] She made the point. She wants to scrap business rates, but what will replace it with, given that it would cost £22 billion a year?
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There has been support to the value of about £18 billion for businesses to help them with their energy bills, and we are determined to secure the future for our energy-intensive industries and to protect jobs. To support those most at risk of carbon leakage, the Government have announced the British industry supercharger, to support those most exposed to the cost of electricity. Those measures will bring the energy costs of the UK’s energy-intensive industries in line with those charged across the world’s major economies.
Scott Benton
Many of the tourism and leisure businesses in Blackpool are energy-intensive, not least the world-famous illuminations and pleasure beach, which now pay hundreds of thousands of pounds more for their energy than previously. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the specific challenges around energy consumption facing the tourism industry, ahead of a busy summer season?
Ms Ghani
Once again, my hon. Friend is a stout campaigner for his constituency, and for the tourism and leisure businesses in Blackpool. He will know that the decision about which businesses fall within the EII scheme is for the Treasury; I am not sure whether the £63 million for leisure centres falls within that catchment or not, so of course, I will meet with my hon. Friend to make sure he has the absolute clarity that he needs. The EII relief scheme is in place to support the most energy-intensive industries, but let me sit down with him and work out whether that industry falls within that category.
David Duguid
The Government’s support for the energy costs of businesses in my constituency has been most welcome. As the Minister will know, fishing is a key industry there, so I am particularly pleased that the processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs is included in the energy and trade intensive industries scheme. Representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association tell me that they are surprised not to be included in that scheme—especially as manufacturers of wine, cider and beer are—despite falling within the top 20% of sectors by energy intensity and the top 40% by trade intensity. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of that industry to discuss this apparent anomaly?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend raises the fishing industry. There are two Back-Bench colleagues present who are huge champions of that industry—I dare not say anything further—and I know that my hon. Friend is a huge promoter of Scottish products, including Scottish whisky. I look forward to a tour post Ramadan at some point soon.
The decision about who falls within the EII scheme was taken by the Treasury. I have been reading about the work that my hon. Friend has been doing on behalf of the sector, and I counter-propose a meeting that involves Treasury officials and Ministers. If my hon. Friend is happy with that, I am more than happy to set it up.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I am honoured to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, and I thank the Secretary of State to agreeing to come and meet us—I am very much looking forward to that discussion. However, may I raise again the issue of her Sky interview in which she said, or certainly strongly implied, that it is not a given that we should have a steel industry in this country? Given the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world, the massive role that steel plays in providing good jobs that people can raise a family on and the vital role it plays in the transition to a decarbonised economy, may I invite the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and clarify her position—that steel is, in fact, a given in the United Kingdom?
Ms Ghani
Unfortunately, I have to come to the Dispatch Box—that is just the way it works—so I disappoint the hon. Member by not being the Secretary of State. However, he knows that steel is absolutely key to our sovereignty and security and for the resilience of all our sectors. The Secretary of State has mentioned repeatedly that the quotes that are being repeated in the Chamber are a misrepresentation. The commitment to the sector continues. It was in place for years: it is why we had £800 million of support for the energy sector, and it is why we have a £1.5 billion competitive fund to help the sector decarbonise.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Small businesses such as coffee shops and cafés in our high streets are the lifeblood of a local economy—one example would be Jeanie’s Coffee Shop in Baillieston. Running a kitchen all day is an incredibly intensive process for energy, and John Devaney was telling me last week how that business’s energy bills have gone up. As the Minister is being so generous with other meetings, would she be willing to meet me to look at how we can support businesses such as Jeanie’s in Baillieston to ensure that they get through the cost of living crisis?
Ms Ghani
I will be full of meetings, but I defer to the Minister with responsibility for small businesses, who is more than happy to have that meeting. We have provided billions of pounds of support for businesses to deal with their energy costs, and we have the new supercharger in place. We lobby the Treasury long and hard, and we are more than happy to represent businesses small and large.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The UK is the most internationally connected financial centre in the world. We continue to attract some of the most innovative and largest companies. More than £17 billion of capital was raised for firms in the UK—a 15-year high—with over 120 deals completed. The UK is taking forward ambitious reforms to rules governing its capital markets, building on our continued success as Europe’s leading—globally, the second largest—hub for investment.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Is Government debt crowding out productive investment?
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend is always so succinct in his questions, and there is often a huge amount of sense behind it. I fundamentally agree that we need to collaborate with business and industry. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr Speaker. The response I want to give to my right hon. Friend’s very good question is that, as he will be pleased to know, there is the Lord Hill listing review and the Sir Douglas Flint review, and in particular the Edinburgh reforms, which will be considering competitiveness and will, I think, provide some sort of answer to his question. It would be remiss of me—because I know that he is particularly interested in this—not to mention that it is 50 years since women were first admitted to the floor of the New York stock exchange after 170 years of just men.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
My Department actively engages and promotes fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally. In 2022, fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion. For 2023-24, my Department is providing the British Fashion Council with funding to support London fashion week, and the UK Fashion and Textile Association with funding for activity at key international trade sector shows. To drive sustainability across the sector, we have announced, via UK Research and Innovation, a £15 million circular fashion programme.
Dr Cameron
The Chancellor has set out his long-term plan for growth, including harnessing our creative industries. As has been said, the UK fashion and textile industry already punches well above its weight, employing in excess of 500,000 people, including in Scotland. Will the Department meet the all-party parliamentary group on textiles and fashion to look at what more can be done to harness young fashion designers who want to walk in the wake of such icons as Stella McCartney?
Kemi Badenoch
I would be happy for either officials or a Minister in my Department, depending on diaries, to have a meeting with the APPG. It is a sector that we want to support, and we will do all we can to demonstrate that.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Through finance, we are making sure that the Government are supporting UK SMEs through our recovery loan scheme and through the start-up loans scheme, which has provided 101,000 loans and nearly £1 billion. On business support, a network of 38 growth hubs across England provides access to information and advice, and we are removing barriers by supporting SMEs seeking to export through the Export Academy, UK Export Finance, cutting red tape and incentivising investment.
Jo Gideon
Businesses and traders in Stoke-on-Trent city centre are supported by the fantastic team at our Hanley business improvement district. This week, with investment from the safer streets fund, they are giving a much-needed facelift to shop fronts in Hope Street, making the gateway route to our city centre more attractive. Does my hon. Friend agree that such initiatives, which make our shopping areas more attractive, are a good investment that encourages business growth locally? Will he join me in congratulating my city centre BID?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a great pleasure to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work. The money that has been invested in Hope Street will contribute to its being a safer, more welcoming place to visit and shop, which in turn will support the local economy. Regenerating streets such as Hope Street is essential to making our high streets and town centres successful, and I congratulate her on the work she does in this regard.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The financial viability of the high street continues to decline as businesses struggle to compete with online shopping, the impact of which will be felt most keenly in local and small to medium-sized businesses. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about the urgent need for a long-term, local-scale economic plan to support high streets?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We have put in place £13.6 billion of business rates support to help businesses over the next few years, but we are also improving access to finance, improving business support through our growth hubs and cutting red tape, making it easier for businesses to start up and scale up in the UK. That work will continue.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
We are currently negotiating accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, a bloc worth £9 trillion of global GDP in 2021. As part of that, our businesses will get enhanced access to the Malaysian market for the first time. Beyond CPTPP, we are continuing negotiations on the UK-India free trade agreement and working to implement FTAs with Australia and New Zealand, in addition to existing trade dialogues with Indo-Pacific partners.
Sir John Whittingdale
I thank my right hon. Friend for the assistance that her Department gives me in my role as trade envoy to the Republic of Korea. Does she agree that the forthcoming negotiations for an enhanced trade agreement with Korea offer real opportunities for British businesses?
Kemi Badenoch
I do agree, and I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for his tireless work as the trade envoy to promote closer trade links with the Republic of Korea. Our trade relationship with Korea is thriving, no doubt thanks to all his hard work. It amounted to about £14 billion in 2021, much of which is in critical goods such as microchips, cars and pharmaceuticals. It is currently supported by our 2019 FTA, so we are going to start discussions with Korea to review how we can make the FTA even stronger, ensuring it continues to support existing trade and create new opportunities for British business.
Mrs Wheeler
Further to my right hon. Friend’s reply, what more specifically can she say about what help His Majesty’s Government is giving to South Derbyshire and British businesses as a whole to take advantage of trade opportunities in Cambodia and Laos?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have increased the tempo of trade missions in Cambodia, and we are actively supporting British companies to expand operations in the education, infrastructure and sustainable energy sectors. In May 2022 the Department appointed a new export support service trade officer to help British companies, including those in her constituency, that wish to export to Laos. It is also eligible for preferential treatment under the developing countries trading scheme. Both initiatives will help boost the UK’s trade with Laos, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on improving relations with that country.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
A Canadian company sponsored by several Pacific island states is poised to begin deep-sea mining at the bottom of the Pacific ocean next year unless we manage to secure a precautionary pause at the International Seabed Authority meetings that are going on at the moment. Will the UK be joining France, Germany, Spain, Chile, New Zealand and some Pacific nations in calling for that precautionary pause, and in what way can we support the economies of Pacific island states without them having to resort to sponsoring such environmentally damaging activities?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and this is a serious matter. The Minister responsible for industry and economic security—the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) —has been dealing with this issue, and she will get in touch if the hon. Lady writes to her.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Here in the UK, we are rightly proud of our high food standards, which include very low allowable levels of pesticide residues in the food we eat. However, organisations such as the Pesticide Action Network have warned that the Government could weaken standards on pesticides and other factors in a rush to sign free trade agreements in the Indo-Pacific region. Can the Government therefore confirm that new FTAs will not lead to a weakening of standards such as those on pesticide residues in food entering the UK?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We have repeatedly said that we are not lowering food standards at all for any free trade agreements that we are signing. That is something we have committed to, and we would want to reassure all of those who lobby on this issue that our trade negotiators have it very much at the forefront of their minds.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
As Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my priority is to support UK companies to thrive at home and abroad. During my visit to Israel this month, I held talks with my counterpart, Nir Barkat, on our upgraded FTA. Israel’s economy is booming, its services sector has grown by 45% in the past decade alone and, while in Israel, I met Teva Pharmaceuticals and Trigo, which are involved in pioneering partnerships with the UK. I also saw the Israeli appetite for British expertise in sectors such as fintech and projects such as the £30 billion Tel Aviv metro.
Duncan Baker
Albert Bartlett is a potato processor in my constituency of North Norfolk and one of its largest employers, with 250 staff. Due to water abstraction permits, this and other farming businesses are simply not going to be able to continue trading or even growing in Norfolk if they are not helped. These significant water licensing issues are affecting all of Norfolk. Has my right hon. Friend spoken to DEFRA colleagues about water supply shortages and how they are impacting on businesses growing food, food security and employment all over the UK?
Kemi Badenoch
As set out in the environmental improvement plan, the Government recognise the need to improve the resilience of our water supplies. We are committed to a twin-track approach of investment in new supply infrastructure and action to reduce leaks and improve water efficiency. This includes support for agriculture, such as grants for reservoirs through the farming transformation fund. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes decisions on this issue, and we will liaise on my hon. Friend’s points and make references to Ofwat, which is the regulator in this case.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The automotive industry is a jewel in the crown of British manufacturing, but to keep that jewel we need to be building batteries for electric vehicles in the UK. So far we have one gigafactory up and running, while Germany already has 10 times our capacity. Alarm bells are ringing across the sector, and we recently had disappointing news with Ford announcing job cuts in Essex. The Faraday Institution estimates that the UK needs 10 battery factories by 2040 to retain our car industry. Does the Secretary of State agree with that assessment? If she does, how and when will she publish a clear plan for how the Government intend to hit that target?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have a strategy in place to support the automotive industry, with £1.3 billion of innovative projects, including the Faraday factory challenge —[Interruption.] I have a response to the question. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have investment in place, so let me continue. With a budget of £544 million, the Driving the Electric Revolution scheme includes nearly £80 million of Government investment through the Innovate UK programme. I suggest that the Opposition Front Benchers flick through my “Critical Minerals Refresh” document, because there is a fantastic page on UK battery supply chains—not just the automotive transformation fund but the Envision AESC announcement, which is worth £1 billion for the north-east electric vehicle hub. Perhaps they will read it before the next Question Time, so that they have a tricker question for us to deal with.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it gives me an opportunity to point out that that is also an issue in my constituency, and something I am concerned about. Unfortunately, it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, because BDUK is an Executive agency of hers, but if she requires any support from me as Business Secretary, I would be happy to provide it. BDUK is doing a good job in looking at this issue in the round, but we would be happy to help and do whatever we can to support businesses in all our constituencies.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is similar to the one raised earlier. I am happy to look at any particular instance where businesses cannot open a bank account. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is also interested in this issue, so if my hon. Friend writes to me about any instances I will look into them.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill allows the UK to take the next step in reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament, and ends the special status of retained EU law in the statute book. Reforms will not come at the expense of our already high standards, and we will maintain our commitments to international obligations, including the withdrawal agreement. We will, of course, ensure that the UK’s position as a global leader in the creative industries will not just remain but be strengthened.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Kevin Hollinrake
There is no waiting at all and the issue is constantly on our agenda. This week I met the Post Office leadership to look at the sustainability of post offices. We are keen to ensure that the post office network is sustainable, and that sub-postmasters are remunerated fairly. We provide financing to the post office network to ensure it is sustainable, with £2.5 billion over the past 10 years, and that will continue. We are determined to ensure that that network is sustainable and provides those services for our citizens.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The Secretary of State has been very clear: it is about the deal, not the date. We will not tie our hands by setting an arbitrary deadline. I am pleased to confirm, however, that round eight of the discussions is currently under way. Both nations have committed to and are working together for a mutually ambitious deal. We are working through substantive issues such as goods, market access, services and investment. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s continuing commitment. It is vital to expand on the deal with India, with £35 billion in bilateral trade sustaining half a million jobs in the two countries.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
I have met CWU representatives. I am always keen to listen to new ideas on how we make the post office network more sustainable, so yes, I am absolutely willing to do that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put them in touch with me.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
May I ask about the CPTPP? Unlike the European Union, this organisation is growing all the time as a percentage of global population and global GDP. When will we finally enter this very exciting trade agreement? When will we have a campaign across the United Kingdom to inform businesses of the tremendous opportunities of us joining the CPTPP? When I talk to my constituents about how excited I am about the CPTPP, they ask me, “What is the CPTPP?”
Kemi Badenoch
For the benefit of my hon. Friend’s constituents, the CPTPP is the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the new trade bloc we hope to join imminently. We have reached a great stage in negotiations, but, as he will have heard in answer to questions from across the House, trade negotiations are not easy and we need to make sure we protect UK food standards. There is a lot we are doing, and I think we will have some good news for him in due course.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am afraid I did not have any time whatever during that trip to do any shopping. It was all about the UK-Mexico free trade agreement, which will do exactly what he wants. The negotiations are ongoing and continue to reflect the shared ambition for an agreement that is both modern and comprehensive. We talked in particular about services and investment in digital. We are aligned in the green chapters and in areas such as small and medium-sized enterprises, innovation and trade, and on gender equality.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
What discussions have the Government had to secure further memorandums of understanding with individual US states? When visiting Nebraska last year, I spoke to the Governor of that state. There is huge enthusiasm, especially among Republican-led states, to strike further deals, so it would be brilliant if we could get some of them over the line.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend, because while the US may not be interested in a free trade deal at the moment, we are working with individual states to develop memorandums of understanding. We have already concluded them with Indiana, North Carolina and South Carolina, and are in discussions with California, Texas, Utah and Oklahoma. We are open to further discussions, because there is huge opportunity of mutual interest.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain how the UK can maintain a close and historic friendship with Israel during the current difficulties? Can he let us know what the Prime Minister will do, when he meets the Israeli Prime Minister this weekend, to challenge the sale of goods produced in illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Nigel Huddleston
I refer the hon. Lady to my answer earlier on part of that question. With our friends and allies, including who we trade with, we raise issues and concerns of interest to our constituents and to the British Government on an ongoing basis, not just in trade and business discussions but through other channels and Government Departments. We are happy to have robust conversations with our friends.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Unlike other alcohol producers, the Scotch Whisky Association and industry are having to put up with a 10% increase in duty, making the cost of whisky 75% tax. Spirits are effectively excluded from the draught support scheme, and distilleries cannot access the energy-intensive industries support that other alcohol producers can. When will we get a level playing field for the Scottish whisky industry?
Kemi Badenoch
This Government value and support the Scotch whisky industry. Just last year, we helped to liberalise tariffs on Scotch whisky in the USA. My Department and I are in continual discussions with the Scotch Whisky Association and industry to see what we can do to support them.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The retail sector is a hugely important part of our economy and a huge employer in my constituency. What are the Government doing to support it in difficult times?
Kevin Hollinrake
The retail sector is benefiting from the £13.6 billion of business rates support and the 75% discount up to £110,000 per premises. These are difficult times for many businesses, not least retail, but we are keen to ensure that we end up on a fair and level playing field. Also, businesses will benefit from the economic turnaround that we expect later this year.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware of just how much wonderful research is going on in our universities in medical technology, environmental technology and all the rest? Will she do something to make our universities more entrepreneurial? Some are lagging in their expertise. What can we do to make universities partner with business to make them more entrepreneurial?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is right that we want universities to become more entrepreneurial. We had fantastic work at Oxford University with AstraZeneca. Many of them are doing quite well. I am keen to hear his suggestions of what I can do to encourage universities. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is working on this issue, but from a business perspective, we want to ensure that we are continuing to facilitate relationships with both businesses and universities, especially in clusters where universities are essential to the local economy.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Why is the Secretary of State perpetuating the myth that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is a good thing, necessary or going to receive Royal Assent in anything like the shape in which it was first presented to this House? What is the target date for Royal Assent? Should she not prepare now to drop the thing entirely?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Further to the negotiations for a free trade agreement with India, can the Minister perhaps update the House on the impact of the closure of the internet in the state of Punjab over the last week, and the reduction in freedom of expression for the majority of the Sikh population of that state?
Nigel Huddleston
As I mentioned in answer to a previous question, when it comes to other issues, including human rights and freedom of the press, these are conversations we also have with our friends and colleagues around the world. We cannot deal with all these issues with free trade agreements.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The United Arab Emirates recently warned Ministers against raising concerns about human rights issues in Gulf Co-operation Council countries if we want to negotiate strong trade deals. That goes completely against our trade principles. Can Ministers confirm that they will not be held to ransom and will not sign trade agreements where human rights are a key concern?
Kemi Badenoch
In everything we do, we ensure that we continue to promote and assert British values. That includes within the trade agreements that we are signing with all countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You have called me, and I have a question ready-made here, Mr Speaker. Like on “Blue Peter”, here is one I prepared earlier.
Only yesterday, the Secretary of State signed a trade deal with the Ukrainian First Minister to provide pivotal support to the Ukrainian economy. Has the Secretary of State assessed how soon that will impact Ukraine in helping it—[Interruption]—lay the foundation for revival?
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid I missed the end of the hon. Member’s question but I am happy to write to him in response.
Food Price Inflation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on food price inflation.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We recognise that food prices have gone up. The recent increase in food price inflation was driven by upward price movements in eight of the 11 food categories. The three most significant price increases since February 2022 are oils and fats, at 32.1%; milk, cheese and eggs, at 30.8%; and non-classified food products, at 28.9%. While recent unseasonable weather in Morocco has also created some temporary supply disruption to fruit and vegetables, domestic retailers have held prices comparatively low compared with the rest of Europe, where increased demand led to some cases of 300% rises in the price of some vegetables.
A number of media outlets have reported that the recent shortage of some salad and vegetables has been the driver for the increase in food inflation in February, but that is not the case. The overall inflation rate increases have been caused by several factors. There are other categories where price increases have been greater than that of vegetables over the past year.
These high overall inflation rates are driven by high utility prices and pressures on global supply chains that are being felt across Europe and beyond. Commentators expect the rate of inflation both across the economy and for food and drink to be near its peak. The Government have put in place a number of measures to support households with prices, including committing £37 billion to support households with the cost of living; £1 billion of that has already gone towards help with the cost of household essentials.
Looking forward to April, the Government will be uprating benefit rates and state pensions by 10.1%. The benefit cap levels will also be increasing by the same amount in order to increase the number of households that can benefit from those uprating decisions. In addition, for 2023-24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to £900 in cost of living payments. That will be split into three payments of around £300 each across the 2023-24 financial year. A separate £300 payment will be made to pensioner households on top of their winter fuel payments, and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefits will receive a £150 payment.
Free school meal eligibility is being permanently extended to children from all families with no recourse to public funds. The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half century. We remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported.
We are also working closely with retailers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability and affordability of food, so while we recognise that this is a challenging time for consumers, we are taking a large number of steps to support people with the cost of living and I have great faith in the food supply chain, which has proven itself to be extremely resilient over the past few years.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Minister of State for his response, but this is a cost of living crisis driven in large part by the cost of food, so where is the Secretary of State? She seems to spend more time in the departure lounge than in her own Department at times. Mr Speaker, I feel like I am shadowing a shadow. Where is the Secretary of State on the most important issue at this point in her brief?
Once again, we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in which food inflation is playing a large part. If inflation overall is not curbed, the danger is that that will have an impact on the ability of people to pay their mortgages and we could see further interest rate rises as a result. There are serious questions about the Government’s approach to the cost of food and our food security. Some producers are reducing production and some are exiting completely. There are now 7,000 fewer food producers in agriculture than in 2019. Food inflation is up 18.2%, which is the highest in 45 years, and import costs to February are up 12.7%. The Minister knows—he is in the business—that those import costs today will be felt for months to come.
There has been warning after warning. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, this is the second urgent question on food security, but where are the Government on farming payments, on labour shortages, on energy costs, on the costs of feed and fertiliser and on the impact of avian flu? Last time the Secretary of State was here, her advice to the nation was a call to arms to go out and buy turnips —those were her words of wisdom. That just does not wash. When will the Government realise that this is a crisis of their making and they need to take action now?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and statements—there were not many questions in there. I can tell him that the Government wholly recognise the challenge that inflation brings to the economy. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out a number of measures to curb inflation and to manage the economy in a way that he will struggle to understand.
I would also say that huge pressures in the global economy, following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on the back of a global pandemic, are being felt all around the world. Global energy prices have driven huge spikes, for example in the cost of fertiliser, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned: ammonium nitrate went from circa £250 a tonne to in excess of £1,000 a tonne for a short period. The good news is that global gas prices are easing back and coming back under control into a more affordable price range. That will take time to feed through to some of the cost pressures that are being put on our primary producers, but the Government are continuing to talk—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman mentions labour. That is why the Government increased the number of seasonal agricultural worker visas to 45,000.
Mark Spencer
So the hon. Gentleman says, but there are an extra 10,000 visas available should the industry request it and require it. That request has not come to the Government, because we still have enough people in the supply chain with the 45,000 visas that are available. We continue to work and co-operate with retailers, processors and the food sector on continuing to supply good-quality food to our consumers.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Yesterday’s inflation numbers were a sobering reminder of how terrible a tax inflation is on our economy. It is a tax that harms everyone, but it harms the poorest most. Does the Minister agree that, while Government fiscal policy this year needs to help in terms of halving inflation, the primary responsibility for getting inflation under control has been set in a remit letter given to the independent Bank of England? It is the Bank’s job to make sure that inflation gets back in its box.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work chairing the Treasury Committee and holding the Treasury to account. She will be aware that the Prime Minister’s priority is to get inflation back under control and get it down. We will continue to work across Government to make sure that that happens, and we do recognise the challenge that this brings to consumers and to our constituents.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on securing this urgent question. The cost of living crisis remains the SNP’s top priority, alongside tackling energy bills. This Government talk about halving inflation, but just yesterday it went up again to 10.4%, and we know that at lunchtime the Bank of England will hike interest rates up to reflect that.
All this, I am afraid, puts pressure on household budgets, which are under enormous strain already. Stats from the Office for National Statistics show that food price inflation runs at 18.2%. The poorest tenth of households experience an even higher rate of inflation, according to the Resolution Foundation. A number of adults are buying less food at the supermarket; worryingly, we are hearing of mothers diluting formula with water just to try and get by. Does the Minister agree that we therefore need to look at the essentials guarantee proposed by the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust: £120 a week for single people and £200 for couples? If the Government will not do that, will they just get out of the way and let an independent Scotland get involved so that we can actually tackle food poverty and make sure that people can live in dignity?
Mark Spencer
I think being able to ride the challenges and operate on an international basis as a United Kingdom is actually a very good example of our being genuinely better off together. However, we recognise that the spike in food prices is a challenge for consumers, particularly the people on lower incomes whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is why the Chancellor has introduced a £37 billion package to support those people, including pensioners, and that is why they will receive regular £300 payments over the next few years, with continued support from the Government to try to mitigate the impact of these prices.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Let me first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before the recent rises in energy and fuel costs, the UK had the most affordable food prices in its history and was considered to have the third most affordable food prices in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor made exactly the right decision in continuing to freeze fuel duty, and that that will be extremely welcome both to food producers and to the food processing industry?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that we have benefited from very low food prices for a number of decades, because of the robust systems that we have in place for retailers and producers of high-quality food. He is also right to recognise that fuel costs are a huge driver of inflation if they are allowed to rise dramatically. That is why the Chancellor has maintained that support, and I am glad that he will continue to do so in the future.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Rising food price inflation is terrifying for many families, none more so than those who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis. I speak to numerous families in my constituency who are having to use food banks although in many cases both partners are in full-time employment. That is truly shocking, and such an indictment of Tory Britain in 2023. The Government are clearly not doing enough, so may I ask the Minister what more they can do to help manufacturers and suppliers to bring costs down and make food more affordable once again?
Mark Spencer
We continue to have regular meetings with the processing and hospitality sectors and with retailers to ensure that there is co-operation throughout the food supply chains. There has be fairness in those supply chains so that risk and reward are shared equally among primary producers, retailers and processors. I think that that co-operation will continue, and the Government are always available to try to co-ordinate these discussions to ensure that we have most effective food supply chains possible.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Government’s measures to assist people with cost of living pressures are among the most generous in Europe, and includes their paying roughly a third of people’s energy bills, but this news on food price inflation is really worrying. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are on track to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise to halve inflation by the end of the year?
Mark Spencer
We continue to monitor inflation, and the Prime Minister’s ambition is to reduce it. Food prices have driven that inflationary figure over the last month, but the good news is that we are starting to see signs that it is at its peak, and already some of the driving factors such as the wholesale prices of gas, fertiliser and imports are beginning to ease back.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I think that all of us, as constituency Members, are dealing with an increasing amount of casework relating to the cost of living. Yesterday the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, which I co-chair, published its first report, “Cash or Food?”, which I commend to all Members. Sadly, no one from the Government was able to attend the launch, so will the Minister agree to meet me and discuss its findings?
Mark Spencer
It is always a pleasure to meet the hon. Lady. She did text me to draw my attention to the event, but my diary did not allow me to attend. However, I will of course be happy to read her report and to meet her at some point in the future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Government’s short-term measures are of course welcome, but we also need a long-term food security plan to encourage farmers to grow more and to ensure that more of our food is produced in this country rather than our relying on expensive imports. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that that long-term plan is implemented?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend has asked an important question. This applies to energy production as well as food production, which is why we are moving away from the common agricultural policy to environmental land management schemes that will help farmers not only to produce great food, but to have a positive impact on our environment and our biodiversity.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be trying to convince us that he has the economy, and inflation along with it, under control, but food prices show us what is happening to the lives of people in our constituencies. The price of full-fat milk has increased by 42%, the price of low-fat milk by 34%, the price of eggs by 32%, and the price of bread by 21%. These are staple foods that people have to buy. Why is the UK so far out of step with other countries, with such huge food price inflation?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right that we are not in step with our European colleagues, who have seen 300% rises in some fruit and vegetable prices. We are way below those sorts of spikes. If we compare food prices across Europe, we see that the UK is very well placed. That is because we have a very robust food supply chain. However, I accept that the fact that it is harder elsewhere is of little consequence to our constituents. We recognise the challenge they face. That is why we have introduced a huge package of support for people with their household bills.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Obviously, inflation is about supply and demand. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that having more domestic production will help our food security. It was worrying to hear that food producers—I am thinking of midlands tomato growers—switched off their electricity instead of planting and having an early season, because of the cost. They said that it did not pay for them to grow an early crop. How can the Department help to enable producers to produce more? This is a question of the cost of electricity, but it is also about ensuring that we have that supply.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in this area; I know that she is a big campaigner on food security and the cost of food, particularly for her constituents. Again, we are working with the sector to try to help and support those who produce food in greenhouses. I recently had the privilege of visiting Thanet Earth in Kent, which is producing cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers for the UK market, linked to an energy supply plant from which it gets free heat and carbon dioxide to help with that process. There are opportunities to do that in the UK. Traditionally, in January and February we have procured tomatoes and cucumbers from north Africa and southern Europe, because the climate is much warmer there. Unfortunately, Morocco and southern Spain suffered a snow event, which led to some challenges in the supply chain.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Food prices have risen by over 18% in the past year. For people in my constituency on low wages, the underlying crisis being caused by that and, of course, the hidden cost of basic foodstuffs rising by two or three times that amount, is crushing. Contrary to what the Minister said, the London School of Economics put the price increases at the door of Brexit. Will he apologise for his Government’s actions and allow my constituents the same access to the single market as those in Northern Ireland?
Mark Spencer
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier, food inflation is higher in Europe than in the UK for some products. He may well want to join back with his friends in Europe, but we have the very best and most robust supply chains. Brexit makes very little difference to that trading relationship. We are still importing products from our friends in Europe, as well as other parts of the world, and we are supporting UK producers to produce great food here, too.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Public sector procurement will play a significant role in ensuring an affordable, healthy and sustainable supply chain. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted on that last year; the consultation finished on 4 September, and apparently there were 126 responses. I have to keep checking that the consultation really did exist, because whenever I ask Ministers about it, they do not seem to know. Labour has adopted one of its policies, about 50% of food being locally sourced and sustainable. When are we going to hear from the Government whether they will do the same?
Mark Spencer
We are very keen to use the power of government to procure top-quality, UK-produced food. As the hon. Lady identifies, we made a commitment to try to get to 50% as soon as possible. We remain committed to encouraging UK Government Departments to procure great British food, which is one tool the Government are using.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Both Chelwood Foodbank Plus and Stockport food bank support people in my constituency, and I am grateful to them. The Trussell Trust network has had to distribute more than 7,000 emergency food parcels each day this winter. Is the Minister proud of his Government’s record on food poverty?
Mark Spencer
The number of households in absolute poverty has actually gone down since the Government came to power, but I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the people working in Stockport’s food banks. We recognise the challenge that consumers are currently facing, particularly those on low incomes, which is why the Chancellor was so supportive in introducing a huge package—£37 billion—to help households get through this crisis.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
When the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, she said, in a memorable televised Select Committee exchange with me, that the responsibility for food poverty lies with DEFRA. I note that she is not here. Does the Minister believe that these food price inflation figures will result in more people using food banks, and that the best way to end food bank use is to support the affordable food networks of Good Food Scotland and Feeding Britain? Will he meet them and me to discuss how we can support affordable food projects?
Mark Spencer
We should be clear that I am the Minister with responsibility for food, which is why I am here to answer this urgent question. We take this challenge very seriously, and we continue to work with other Departments to try to help households cope with food price increases. As I said earlier, the good news is that we are seeing signs that this is the peak of food price inflation. There are signs that global gas prices, fertiliser prices and import costs are starting to reduce.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I have forgotten my question!
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I know the Minister to be an honest chap, so will he stop making excuses, whether it is Putin or snow, and wake up to the fact that the food bank network is crumbling? The network cannot cope with demand, and it cannot get the supply. Its volunteers across the country are stressed out by the pressure. When will he do something? Perhaps all the money raised by the plastic bag charge could flow not into the supermarkets’ back pockets but into the food banks.
Mark Spencer
The Government have a responsibility to deal with the facts as they are presented. It is a statement of fact that Ukraine was a huge producer of food within Europe. It is a statement of fact that Putin’s illegal invasion caused global gas prices to go up exponentially, and even the hon. Gentleman would recognise that that has had a huge impact.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the retailers are creaming off huge profits on the back of the plastic bag tax, but the margin on their profits is actually around 1% or 2%. We continue to work with retailers and the processing sector to make sure there is fairness in the supply chain, so that the risk and reward are shared. UK retailers are doing a very good job of keeping us well supplied and of suppressing prices as much as possible in comparison with our European colleagues.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Our constituents who use first-stage infant formula with their babies are experiencing soaring costs, and those who are unable to afford these increased prices are watering down the formula to make it last. Such products should be treated with the utmost caution, as unsuitable alternatives can damage the health of babies. What does the Minister have to say to families in our constituencies who are not able to afford infant formula for their babies? What action will he take to ensure these products are affordable and available to all?
Mark Spencer
I recognise how challenging that situation must be. That is why the Government are putting in huge support packages to try to help households cope with the increase in energy and food prices. We will continue to look after the most vulnerable people in society, offering them support to help them through this challenging time.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Many food and drink businesses express their frustrations to me, as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, about the lack of co-ordination between the Minister’s Department and BEIS. Given the influence of inflation, the challenges in the labour market, and the need for technology adoption and automation in the sector, is it not time for a proper, co-ordinated sector deal between BEIS, the Department for International Trade and the Minister’s Department for the food and drink industry?
Mark Spencer
We do, of course, talk to our colleagues across government, and we also invest a huge amount in technology to help develop new technologies to reduce the price of food production. We are running competitions to encourage robotics and computerised systems to help in the processing sector. We have also introduced the gene editing Bill—the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill—which I hope will reach Royal Assent very soon. It will help the industry to develop new technologies to reduce the cost of food production.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I grew up in West Dunbartonshire in the 1970s and 1980s, when the legacy of de-industrialisation was compounded by recession after recession, weak economic growth became the norm and well-paid, skilled jobs were replaced with minimum wage service industry jobs, creating a vicious circle that seems difficult to escape. Will the Minister advise my constituents, and similar constituents across these islands, who are living close to the breadline what the Government are doing for them, as Brexit Britain has brought about this 1970s food inflation?
Mark Spencer
There is a fundamental difference between today and the 1970s: employment is at a very high level and lots of jobs are available to people. But that does not mitigate the challenge that some constituents are finding themselves in. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced this huge package of support to try to help people with that cost of living challenge they face.
Kim Johnson
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me a second opportunity. The Minister mentioned the number of children accessing free school meals. We have nearly 4 million children living in poverty, so will he explain what assessment he has undertaken of the impact of food price inflation on the delivery of school meals, given that schools receive only £2.41 per pupil and that has increased by only 7p in the past 13 years?
Mark Spencer
We are supporting more children now than at any point in history. We continue to offer them that support and we will carry on doing that. School meals are the responsibility of the Department for Education, but we consistently have conversations with our friends across government to make sure that we are co-operating and co-ordinating our approach.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
There are 10 food pantries across my constituency supplying the surplus food from the various main supermarkets for between £5 and £10 per bag. The demand is so great that the volunteers cannot keep up with people doing their weekly shops at these pantries. We now face a new challenge: FareShare, which co-ordinates the surplus food, is running out of surplus food. What is the Minister going to do to start dealing with the huge problem of constituents paying for a week’s food of whatever they can find for £10, which is almost past its sell-by date, but the suppliers are running out? When is he going to get a grip and start dealing with the issues of food poverty in this country?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the great support our retailers are giving to those people who face that challenge; they continue to work with charities in that sector to help supply food to the most vulnerable. Of course, the Government also play their part with a huge package of support, helping people through this challenge.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My concern is here and now: the food banks in York are running out of food because demand is going through the roof and people cannot afford to make the donations that they were. For my part, I am having a food drive on 31 March and 1 April for our city to donate. What is the Minister doing on his part? Will he make grants available to food banks so that they can actually afford to feed our city?
Mark Spencer
We continue to work with the whole sector, including retailers, manufacturers and primary producers, to maintain the most robust food supply chain. I pay tribute to the work that food banks do in the hon. Lady’s constituency to support the most vulnerable; that is what we are doing too, as a Government, by supporting people with the cost of their household bills.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Our farmers were promised by the Conservative Government that the support that they received from the EU would be replaced in full after the UK left the EU. Instead, their subsidies are being phased out; there will be a basic payment cut of 20% this year. On top of that, in April, farmers’ energy bill support will be cut by up to 85%. Given those 2016 Government promises to farmers, will the Minister commit to stopping the phasing out of support payments until the new environmental land management schemes are fully rolled out, so that we can bring down food prices?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are moving to a new phase—away from the common agricultural policy and towards environmental land management schemes. If we listened to him and his party, and agreed to motions that they have tabled in this place and the other place, we would cut off farmers’ access, up and down this country, to the environmental land management schemes, which also cover countryside stewardship. The fatal motion his party has tabled in the other place would crash the rural economy, and destroy the opportunity for farmers to move to a new system and improve our environmental impact.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Food retailers report that food packaging is a key area in which costs have risen significantly. That contributes to higher prices in shops. What conversations have there been about supporting businesses in reducing packaging, or sourcing more affordable materials?
Mark Spencer
There have been many conversations, both across Government and with producers, manufacturers and retailers, on reducing the amount of plastic packaging that we release into the environment, and on making packaging more reusable and recyclable, and less costly to the consumer.
Mr Speaker
As it is his birthday on Saturday, and given the worries about the price of birthday cakes, we had better hear from Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am still a young person at heart. I thank the Minister very much for his responses. He understands the issues well. He and the Government are doing their best. I hail from a constituency that grows the best potatoes: Comber potatoes. Everyone knows that they are the best in the UK, and indeed the world. My constituency ships ready-to-eat mash and other veg throughout the United Kingdom. The potential is there for us to be self-sustaining. Will the Minister outline how he intends to support the farming industry, so that it can make more British produce to sell in the internal market, which will lower the price of staple foods? That, in turn, will lower inflation for all.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his interest in this area. I hope he recognises that we are self-sufficient in lamb; we are very close to being self-sufficient in beef; and we are more than 100% self-sufficient in liquid milk. The UK has a very good supply chain and top-quality producers. The good news, which I hope he will join me in celebrating, is that the Windsor framework now allows Northern Irish farmers to plant Scottish seed potatoes without interference. That is good news for the United Kingdom, for Scottish seed producers, and for Northern Ireland’s potato growers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on talks to de-escalate the violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is intensely focused on, and concerned by, the increasing violence on the west bank. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Israeli counterpart, Eli Cohen, on Tuesday to emphasise the importance of Israeli de-escalation ahead of the convergence of Easter, Passover and Ramadan. As the Foreign Secretary set out to this House on 14 March, he has also urged the Palestinian leadership to take steps to avoid a cycle of violence. While the security situation remains fragile, I welcome Israeli and Palestinian engagement in the meetings in Aqaba on 26 February and Sharm el-Sheikh on 19 March. It is critical that both parties abide by the commitments made there publicly and take forward the confidence-building measures that they have promised.
The UK wants to see three steps that would demonstrate commitment to de-escalating the worrying situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. First, the Palestinian Authority must resume security co-operation with Israel, fight against terror and incitement of violence, and improve the security situation in area A of the west bank. Too many Israelis have been killed in terror attacks in Israel and the west bank this year. Such targeted attacks against civilians are unlawful, unjustifiable and repugnant.
Secondly, Israel must do more to tackle unacceptable settler violence such as that perpetrated against innocent Palestinians in Huwara. The UK has consistently urged Israeli security forces to provide appropriate protection to the Palestinian civilian population, bring to justice perpetrators of settler violence and end the culture of impunity. The UK condemned the Israeli Finance Minister’s comments calling for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped out” and his recent comments that deny the existence of the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their history and culture.
Thirdly, Israel must also cease its unilateral steps that push parties further from dialogue and reduce the possibility of meaningful negotiations. Those steps include stopping approval of settlements, legalisation of outposts and evictions of Palestinians in occupied territory, particularly in east Jerusalem. The Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about the speculation of settlement building on the E1 site in the OPTs and we are pleased that there has now been a moratorium on that expansion. However, we are deeply concerned at the recent repeal of the 2005 Disengagement Plan Implementation Law by the Knesset. That decision is another unilateral measure that damages any renewed efforts at de-escalation and risks further undermining a two-state solution.
All Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace and security, not just through the upcoming festivals of Easter, Passover and Ramadan this spring, but for the long term. That will require political will, good faith, strong co-operation and meaningful actions by both Israelis and Palestinians. The UK remains resolute in its commitment to a two-state solution based on 1967 lines.
Ms Qaisar
I pay my respects to both Palestinians and Israelis who have been killed in recent violence. Ramadan Mubarak; today marks the start of Ramadan and I, like many Muslims, am fasting. Yet Muslims and those of other faiths or no faith in the occupied Palestinian territories have seen a significant increase in human rights violations perpetrated by Israeli authorities.
More than 1,000 Palestinians are at imminent risk of forcible transfer from Masafer Yatta, an action that would amount to a war crime. The situation is rapidly deteriorating and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, lands in the UK today on a state visit. During talks, the UK Government must call for a de-escalation of violence.
Amnesty International concluded last year that Israel is
“committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians.”
Will the UK Government raise those concerns with the Prime Minister? The Finance Minister recently stated:
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people”,
and said he wanted to see the Palestinian village of Huwara wiped off the map. Will the Minister put on record her disgust at that type of language?
The Israeli Government continue to push for the development of illegal settlements, despite promising not to do so. If that construction does not stop, will the UK Government commit to suspending trade deal talks with Israeli counterparts until we can ensure human rights are safeguarded?
The UK Government must acknowledge the systematic and calculated discrimination against Palestinians in occupied territories carried out by the Israeli military and authorities. Will the Government finally halt their approval of the sale of arms to Israel and support the need for an independent investigation by the International Criminal Court into human rights violations?
We are approaching the one-year anniversary of the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Al Jazeera has escalated her killing to the ICC after the Israeli defence force refused to investigate her killing and former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid said:
“No one will investigate IDF soldiers and no one will preach to us about morals in warfare”.
Do the Government accept that, unless they urgently support the ICC investigation, they are turning a blind eye to blatant military impunity for murdering Palestinians?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am happy to repeat that the UK condemned the Israeli Finance Minister’s comments calling for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be wiped out, and his recent comments denying the existence of the Palestinian people. We have condemned that absolutely, and I think that has been heard clearly.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will visit the UK tomorrow, and has asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister. He will have a short meeting with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. I know that the Prime Minister will raise the issues that concern us—as all good, trusted friends and partners do. We are confident and always do so with all our partners, including Israel.
The hon. Lady mentioned the anniversary of the death of respected Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. It seems extraordinary that we are already a year on. The UK is committed to working with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to advance that peaceful two-state solution. We voted no on the resolution pertaining to referral to the ICC because we consider that is not helpful to bringing the parties back to dialogue. As I set out in my answer to the urgent question, we continue to work with all parties to help find a way forward. We hope that the continuing role of talks will help to move that forward.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In recent weeks, three of the many terrorist attacks that have occurred in Israel were committed by children under 15—two stabbings and one shooting. I ask the Government to urge the Palestinian Authority to do more to tackle that toxic culture of radicalisation and anti-Israel hatred, which is leading to the exploitation and radicalisation of children, and to their involvement in terrorist attacks.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend highlights one of the most distressing aspects of the continued violence and despair between both countries. We continue to work with all parties, as I have set out, to try to reduce the level of violence. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will raise that in his meetings tomorrow and ask parties to continue to take urgent measures to reduce tensions, de-escalate the situation and, indeed, end that deadly cycle of violence. Of course, that includes supporting them in trying to keep children away from that radicalisation position.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Labour party stands for international law, human rights and a negotiated peace based on a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a sovereign Palestinian state.
At the last elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went into coalition with the far right and, under that new Government, an already fragile situation has worsened. His promotion of extremists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich has put ultra-nationalism in key positions of the Israeli Government. I am sure that the whole House will have been appalled by Smotrich’s remarks in Paris this weekend, when he denied the very existence of the Palestinian people and their culture.
Thus far, 2023 has seen one of the highest death tolls for Palestinians and Israelis in a long time, with more than 80 Palestinians and 14 Israelis killed this year. There has been a renewed assault on the rights of Palestinians, a ramping up of inflammatory rhetoric, and dangerous new moves to try to legitimatise illegal settlements, threatening the viability of a two-state solution. Israel has suffered from terrorist attacks and a new militant threat, and the Israeli Government are also taking steps that threaten to undermine Israel’s democracy. President Netanyahu’s attempts to undermine judicial independence and dispense with equality laws for the LGBT+ community are sowing division and deep unease. The weekly mass protests in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem demonstrate that Israeli society is now also deeply divided.
What is the Minister’s assessment of the impact of what many in Israel see as fundamental attacks on their precious democracy? The Prime Minister has, in his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow, an opportunity to use Britain’s close relationship with Israel to take a clear stance on human rights, respect for international law and commitment to democracy. I am deeply concerned that the recently signed road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations dilutes long-standing UK positions, held by successive Governments, in relation to international law. The road map makes no mention of supporting a two-state solution, and it implies that settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories could be treated as part of Israel for the purposes of trade. Can the Minister tell the House whether the road map amounts to a change in policy, will she reiterate that the Government still support a two-state solution, and will she make it clear that the UK deplores the current escalation of violence?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is always encouraging to hear both sides of the House agree that the UK’s position on the middle east process finding a resolution is that we want to see a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. That remains a clear position and has not changed.
The road map that the Foreign Secretary signed with his counterpart earlier in the week in London fulfils the commitments that were made in the November 2021 memorandum of understanding on strengthening co-operation across a range of relationships around our economic, security and technology ties and, importantly, advancing our co-operation on environmental and climate change issues, and leveraging our combined strengths in that area to address some of the global health challenges. It also contains provisions on the importance of regional co-operation in working together to expand the historic Abraham accords. That is a series of practical issues that we will work upon together with our Israeli friends, but it does not in any way change the UK’s position—it is good to hear the shadow Minister set out the same—on the agreed settlement that we continue to support.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Polling conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research showed that 72% of all Palestinians supported the formation of armed terror groups such as the Lions’ Den. These groups have been behind more than 1,000 terror incidents over the last year and are facilitated with Iranian and Hezbollah financial and military support. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the emergence of these groups, the high level of support they are receiving and the Palestinian Authority’s apparent loss of control over so much of the west bank to these terror groups?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I reiterate that we absolutely condemn violence from all sides, and we want to ensure that we help the Palestinian Authority to improve their security through the work of the British support team in Ramallah, whom I had the privilege to visit last year on my visit to the OPTs, along with the many networks that we are helping to strengthen and stabilise their own communities. We remain resolute in our commitment to Israel’s security, and we condemn Hamas’s use of indiscriminate and abhorrent rocket attacks. We want to continue to provide support and the strong, clear message that every Israeli and every Palestinian has the right to live in peace and security.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) on securing this urgent question. Clearly, settlement expansion is a major issue in the violence that is continuing to break out. This week, the Israeli Parliament voted to allow Israeli citizens to occupy four sites in the west bank evacuated in the 2005 disengagement. The High Court of Justice has already classified this as private Palestinian land. Clearly, the moratorium that the Minister mentioned is not being respected here.
We know that this is not a simple situation, but there are some simple steps that we can take here to make a difference. Will the Minister support the UK banning trade in Israeli settlement goods? Will she include the UK Government’s own stated position that these settlements are illegal in any and all agreements with Israel and provide for consequences for breach of that? Will she also carry that forward into forthcoming trade deal discussions? Will she stop the export of equipment and arms proven to be repeatedly used in settlement expansion, and will she do it now?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK’s position on settlements is clear: settlements are illegal under international law and call into question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. We have urged Israel to halt its settlement expansion, which we believe threatens the physical viability of a Palestinian state. In February, we and our partners—the US, France, Germany and Italy—set out strong opposition to these unilateral steps. They are contrary to international law, and they undermine the prospects for peace.
In relation to trade matters, our long-established position on settlements is clear: the UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, including illegal settlements. Goods originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, are not entitled to tariff and trade preferences under either the existing trade agreement between the UK and Israel or, indeed, the agreement between the UK and the Palestinian Authority.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I was really pleased to hear from the Minister that she and the Government continue to support the two-state solution on the former boundaries of 1967. How does she believe that can happen? When I visited recently, the settlements are being built on top of Palestinian houses, and they are insisting on demolitions of Palestinian houses. How can it possibly work?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend raises the concerns that we all have. The voice that we use directly with both our Israeli and our Palestinian friends sets out the continued clear direction that we want to see: de-escalation and, indeed, retrenchment from those illegal settlements. This continues to be something that is on the agenda whenever we are in talks with them, and I am certain that the Prime Minister will raise those issues tomorrow when Prime Minister Netanyahu is here.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Time after time, we see on social media the crimes against humanity being visited on the Palestinian people. We see it with regularity: homes, houses and schools being destroyed, with bulldozers at the door. Will the Minister understand that this country has a special responsibility and a special place of leverage to make demands? We cannot keep going with the same endless warm words around this conflict. The time has come for this Government to recognise the state of Palestine with immediate effect, and to demand a ban on settlement goods and on the settlements themselves. Will she commit to that?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, the UK Government continue to ask all parties to take urgent measures to reduce those tensions and de-escalate the situation. Because of what the hon. Gentleman has described, we continue to make those statements, and we are engaging closely with all our international partners to try to help end that deadly cycle of violence. We will carry on raising these issues with the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to support co-operation, stability and economic development for the benefit of all their peoples, and we will use the economic tools to help us do that, alongside others. This continues to be at the forefront of the Foreign Secretary’s work.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Since January, 14 Israelis have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists, and 80 Palestinians have lost their lives during confrontation with the IDF or in the course of terrorist activities. At the same time, we have seen the emergence of Lions’ Den and other terrorist groups, and we have also seen the role of Iran in encouraging those terrorist groups across the world. Will my right hon. Friend review the position on Lions’ Den and these other terrorist groups so that they are proscribed in this country, and also finally proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As my hon. Friend is aware, this is a Home Office issue, and as I have said, Prime Minister Netanyahu will be meeting the Home Secretary tomorrow on his visit. We continue to work closely with the Home Office on all these matters, and we will await its view on them.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
As the Minister has said, the settlements on the west bank are illegal and they undermine the possibility of a two-state solution, so will the Government make it absolutely clear to Benjamin Netanyahu that any attempt to annex the west bank is totally and unequivocally unacceptable?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, the UK’s position on settlements is absolutely clear. Settlements are illegal under international law and they call into question Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution. We continue to raise the issue with our Israeli counterparts and to condemn settler violence in order that de-escalation provides the opportunity for peace talks to progress.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The historic Abraham accords prove once and for all that peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours is not only possible, but can quickly bring remarkable and positive change to the region. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the accords, and does she agree that Palestinian leaders would be best served by embracing their spirit and joining Israel at the negotiating table as soon as possible?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Abraham accords have provided an opportunity to move forward, and we were pleased to see progress at the Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh meetings earlier in the year, and we continue to support and encourage all sides to continue that process. This is difficult—we understand that—and we stand ready to support all to ensure that a two-state solution is the one that we reach.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
This week, a ban was lifted to allow Israeli citizens back into the sites of four settlements in the occupied west bank. The UK must stand firm against any steps towards annexation. What concerns has the Minister raised about the legality of settlement expansion under international law and its impact on the viability of a two-state solution? Will further calls for action be made by the Government when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the UK?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The United Kingdom is opposed to the unilateral annexation of all or any part of the west bank. Such a move would be contrary to international law and damaging to peace efforts, and it could not pass unchallenged. We are committed to working with all parties to maintain calm and avoid provocation, and we are absolutely clear that demolitions and forced evictions are contrary to international humanitarian law.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I call the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Since the start of this year, as we have already heard, 15 Israelis have been killed and 70 injured in Palestinian terror attacks, with stabbings, shootings and bombings targeting innocent people. What steps is our Government taking to support Israel in combating terrorism?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are appalled by the multiple terror attacks that have killed and injured Israelis and, indeed, Palestinian civilians in the early part of this year. While Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself, it is important that Israeli forces exercise maximum restraint, especially in the use of live fire, when protecting legitimate security interests. We are continuing to work, asking all parties to take urgent measures to reduce tensions in order to de-escalate this situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister will be aware of the remarks of the Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, saying that the Palestinian village of Huwara should be wiped out. She will also be aware that he has said:
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.”
Denying the existence of a people and calling for villages to be wiped out takes the level of rhetoric to a new level of unacceptability. With people like that now at the heart of the Netanyahu Government, is it not imperative that we do what we can to offer some protection to the Palestinian people by recognising, as a matter of urgency, the Palestinian state?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said before, and I am happy to say again, the UK has condemned the Israeli Finance Minister’s comments calling for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be wiped out, and his recent comments that deny the existence of the Palestinian people, as well as their right to self-determination, their history and their culture. That is unacceptable, and we have made that clear, as have all our international partners. We continue to work with all parties, and with the Palestinian Authority, to provide support through the work of the British support team in Ramallah and our diplomatic teams in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, who are actively working on the ground and speaking to and working with their hosts. We are also a strong supporter of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides vital services to those in need in Palestinian Authority areas.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The situation in the region is deeply worrying, yet there is an ever-growing fear about what will happen when Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas leaves the scene after almost two decades in power. Palestinians have borne the brunt of an undemocratic and corrupt Palestinian Authority for years, but the alternatives are likely to be much worse, and terror groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have been behind much of the recent violence, are likely to attempt to fill the vacuum. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the situation?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We continue to call on Hamas and other terrorist groups to permanently end their incitement and rocket fire against Israel. The Government have assessed that Hamas in its entirety is concerned in terrorism, and in November 2021 we proscribed the organisation in full. We strongly condemn the incitement in the Hamas-run media and education system, which contributes to a culture of hate. As I say, we want to work with the Palestinian Authority and with Palestinians to help them to strengthen their economy and to support their next generation of young people in a successful two-state solution.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The terror attacks on civilians in the Palestinian territories and in Israel have been a very sharp and terrible reminder of the need to build support for peace among the Palestinian people and the Israeli people. Five years ago, the UK Government expressed support for the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, but there has not been much action since. Does the Minister agree that people-to-people co-existence projects between Israelis and Palestinians represent the best opportunity for building consensus around peace while we have a lack of a political process? What more can the Government do?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I agree with the right hon. Lady that relationships are strengthening through economic and academic ties. When I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories last year, I met some wonderful young people developing incredible tech solutions and young business people with deep education and real enthusiasm for helping their country’s economy to grow. Through trade agreements that already exist with Israel, and opportunities with the Palestinian Authority, we are helping those relationships to grow. Alongside that, there is the work, as I have set out, to support peaceful solutions so that those young people have the peace and prosperity they richly deserve.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The tragic escalation of violence that we are witnessing has been stoked by a number of terror actors, including Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, which are actively seeking to sow the seeds of instability in the region. Guns, explosive devices and financial support have all flooded the region in a clear attempt to undermine the democratic state of Israel. What conversations is the Foreign Office having with regional parties about these subversive activities?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have set out, the Foreign Secretary speaks regularly with his counterparts, and our ambassador and teams in-country in both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem work very closely day by day with many actors. We continue to do so, and if my hon. Friend would like a more detailed briefing, I am happy to set that up with the relevant Minister.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Every death in this conflict is a tragedy, so I hope the Minister will disassociate herself from comments from those on her own side who either ignore the deaths of Palestinians or, in relation to Palestinian civilians—including the many children who have been murdered this year—choose to call them “confrontation with the IDF”. That is beyond the pale.
The Minister said that the road map signed this week is out of date, which is candid. It contains no territorial clause, so it opens the way for illegal settlements to be treated as part of green line Israel. Far from raising concerns about the abuse of Palestinian human rights and breaches of international law, it attacks UN bodies for raising those very concerns. Does the Minister accept that this business-as-usual approach legitimises the actions of the extremists in the far-right Israeli Government in relation to both the incitement of violence against the Palestinian civilians and the de jure annexation of the west bank by its transfer to civilian administration?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am afraid I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of colleagues in different parts of the House. I think we all stand firmly together on the policy that those on the Labour Front Bench have highlighted, which is that we all want to see a two-state solution. We want to see Israelis and Palestinians able to live together, side by side, and allow their economies and young people to thrive in a peaceful environment. We continue to work at many levels to support that process, as I have set out. The road map sets out a series of work programmes, where we will work together in support of economic and security ties. We continue to make—as we clearly do this morning—our position known on what we consider to be violence that needs to be de-escalated. We continue, as do our international partners, to make those views clearly known, and we absolutely support the peace talks and the continuing meetings where we are starting to encourage such progress. This is a continuingly difficult situation, and the UK is clear about what we think is the right outcome. The road map is there to help that work, day to day with citizens, as is the trade agreement with the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to support their economic development.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Will the Minister finally acknowledge, on the Floor of the House, that Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are subjected to mass, calculated discrimination at the hands of Israeli authorities, and will she urgently halt arms trade to Israel?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, we continue to be deeply troubled by the high number of Palestinian civilians killed and injured. The Foreign Secretary has raised that matter recently, and I know the Prime Minister will continue to do so in his meeting tomorrow.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about the escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians, which has been intensifying since the start of this year. I appreciate and welcome the Minister’s commitment to the two-state solution. Illegal settlements and the eviction of Palestinians from their homes causes unnecessary suffering and deaths and calls into question the two-state solution. Will the Minister clarify her comments in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). Will she confirm that the road map—a key document to help outline our commitment—mentions the two-state solution?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I said, the road map sets out our intention to strengthen co-operation, across our relationship with Israel, around economic, security and technology ties, and to advance co-operation on the environment and climate change. We continue to raise our concerns about the escalating violence, including with our international partners so that the voice of the international community is clearly heard to support a peaceful resolution.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister is aware of the almost daily protests in Israel. On 11 March, half a million people came out on the streets across Israel to protest against the proposed Netanyahu judicial reforms, which will end the independent judiciary because the Government will be able to appoint judges, including to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the last bastion for many Palestinians. It stopped the evictions at Sheikh Jarrah, it put a gate in the separation wall, and it continues to prosecute cases regarding demolitions and settlement expansion. Will the Prime Minister raise with Prime Minister Netanyahu the fact that an independent judiciary is crucial, and a central pillar of any democracy?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I know the Prime Minister’s team will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I will ensure that they are passed on to No.10 later this afternoon.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I listened closely to the Minister outlining the sad situation in Israel and recognise the wide unrest about the political situation there. Given those circumstances, and the actions of and attitudes expressed by representatives of the Israeli Government, this cannot be business as usual. Is it time to re-evaluate totally the nature of our intergovernmental relationship with the state of Israel?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, we are appalled by the continuing and increasing terror attacks, which are injuring both Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to share our concerns and support those who are working towards a peaceful resolution.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister has mentioned repeatedly the need for a de-escalation of violence. However, since the election of the most right-wing Government in Israel’s history, human rights violations have increased significantly, including the deaths of innocent children. Settlements in the occupied west bank are illegal, and the eviction of Palestinians from their homes causes unnecessary suffering and calls into question the Israeli Government’s commitment to a viable two-state solution. Will the Minister outline how she intends to ensure the Israeli Government abide by their obligations under international law? No warm words—actions speak louder than words.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, the UK Government continue to ask all parties to take urgent measures to reduce tensions and de-escalate. Since the beginning of the year, both the Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad have spoken to many influential international partners working alongside us who have a stake in calming this very difficult situation.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Government this week announced the 2030 road map for UK-Israel relations. However, the Minister has not answered—she has been asked several times—whether she can confirm that the Government consider the road map to effectively distinguish between green line Israel and illegal settlements, as required by UN National Security resolution 2334? Will the Minister confirm whether the Government undertook any assessment of the road map’s compatibility with international law and UN Security Council resolution 2334?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am not the expert on the detail of the road map. I will ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure that details are placed in the House, so that colleagues can see more fully the extensive work done on it and the work it brings together for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her response. Having lived through a time of violence and fear, and raised my children in that environment, I am so thankful my grandchildren do not have the same experience. Will the Minister outline what support we are offering to Israeli and Palestine children to learn a different way: not to hate, but to live in compromise? Will she reiterate that the role of our Government and our Ministers is to facilitate the peace and not take sides, reminding certain factions that the words they use in this place can resonate in Israel and can carry difficulties that are paid in blood? Wise words must be used always.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman is wise. Fortunately, few of us have had his experience. He always speaks with great thoughtfulness on this matter. As one practical example of help, we voted to renew the UN Relief and Works Agency’s mandate last year. We remain a proud and important supporter of the agency, which provides essential humanitarian support. For instance, it provides education to over 533,000 children a year, half of them girls, and access to health services to 3.5 million Palestinian refugees. We continue to support it and are working, through the other tools we have, to help sustain it and help people look forward to the opportunities of a peaceful two-state solution, which we will continue to work on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Business of the House
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 27 March will include:
Monday 27 March—Consideration in Committee of the Illegal Migration Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 28 March—Consideration in Committee of the Illegal Migration Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 29 March—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 30 March—General debate on the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The House will rise for Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 30 March and will return on Monday 17 April.
The provisional business for the week commencing 17 April includes:
Monday 17 April—Second Reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information (No.2) Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
In his first speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to lead a Government with “accountability at every level”, requiring Ministers to take responsibility for decisions and actions and submit themselves for scrutiny. Does the Leader of the House think that the Prime Minister has kept his promise? I would answer no. We see a constant passing of the buck: “It wasn’t us”; “It was the lawyers’ fault”; “It was the Opposition’s fault”; “It was the civil servants”; “The anti- growth coalition made me crash the economy”; “The blob stopped me stopping the boats”; “The dog ate my homework”. Increasingly ridiculous excuses from the Government. Will the Leader of the House allow MPs to decide whether the Prime Minister has kept his promise, by having a debate on the principle of accountability?
Will the Government take responsibility for the Tory cost of living crisis? Just yesterday, inflation jumped again to 10.4%. Prices have been soaring for months; food has gone up even faster, at 18%. Families are unable to book a holiday or start work on an extension they have been saving up for, and are struggling to pay the bills. Tories blame anyone and anything rather than take responsibility for their 13 years of failure that has led us here.
Will the Tories take responsibility for the small boats crisis? They blame Labour—a party with an actual plan, though not yet in government, to stop channel crossings that are putting lives at risk. But on their watch, last year arrivals reached a new high of 45,000 people, up from just 299 in 2018. Two weeks in a row, the Leader of the House has refused to say when we will see an impact assessment of their latest asylum Bill, to replace the one last year that did not work. Third time lucky: could we have an impact assessment before Committee on Monday? The Minister for Immigration has said that it will be published in “due course”. Where have I heard that before?
It is no good publishing an impact assessment after a Bill has been rushed into law. How is that good lawmaking? How is it a Government allowing scrutiny of their policies? Thankfully, where they failed, the Refugee Council has stepped up and produced an impact assessment. It says that it will cost £9.6 billion just to detain or accommodate people in the first three years of the Bill’s operation. Is that true? Is that what the Government are hiding? Will Ministers take responsibility and publish the impact assessment?
Will Ministers take responsibility for appearing before Select Committees? Why has it been so difficult for the Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), to agree to appear before the Women and Equalities Committee? According to the Committee’s website—I checked—the Minister refused its request to give evidence on menopause in the workplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), a Committee member, pointed out that Ministers must prioritise appearances before Committees. It is not an optional extra as she fancies it, or something to squeeze in if there is time in her diary. Could the Leader of the House please remind the Minister of that?
I am afraid that it got worse. We had another round of the Tory blame game, as the Minister took to Twitter, accusing the Committee of being misleading. Could the Leader of the House ask the Minister to take responsibility and apologise to the hard-working Committee Clerks? Is this mess not indicative of the Government’s disregard for women’s health? The next Labour Government will help businesses to support their employees who are going through the menopause. In our new deal for working people, we will require all large employers to submit menopause action plans annually. That is Labour backing working women. What is the Government’s plan?
The Prime Minister’s promise at the start of his premiership was an empty one. The Government are not interested in taking responsibility, not interested in putting themselves or their policies up for scrutiny and not interested in being accountable. They are at the end of the road. No more excuses. No more passing the buck. It is time for a change to a Labour Government, accountable to Parliament and to the British people, with bold, fully funded policies, standing the test of scrutiny. People want to feel better off. They want to be able to see a doctor when they need to, and they want a Prime Minister they trust to take responsibility. That is what they will get with Labour.
Penny Mordaunt
I note that today is the day of reflection marking three years since we first entered lockdown. I know all Members will be reflecting on the experiences of our constituents, as well as those of our own families, during those dark days, and reflecting in particular those who lost their lives and those to whom we owe an immense debt of gratitude for their role in defeating the virus and saving lives.
I wish to associate myself with the many tributes paid to PC Keith Palmer. My thoughts are with his colleagues and his family, and with the families of all those who lost their lives.
I wish to send my good wishes to the dockyard workers hurt in the accident at Leith.
The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), raises some serious points. First, I turn to the issue she raises about my hon. Friend the Minister for Women. I do not think there is any reason for the Minister for Women to apologise to the House. She has a reputation for cross-party working on issues that she cares passionately about, in particular around women’s health, and she played a major role in work on the menopause, with the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).
My understanding of what happened is that the Minister for Women could not make the date proposed and had offered other dates to the Committee. The reason she could not make the date was that she had given an undertaking to a Labour Member, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), to meet a group of women who were suffering from a particularly painful condition. That meeting was here, but it was scheduled for the same time as the planned Committee hearing. The Minister wanted to go ahead with the meeting, as the women had travelled some distance to come here. Ironically, the hon. Member for West Ham was unable to attend the meeting, for perfectly legitimate reasons. However, the Minister did not take to Twitter to denounce her for that or to encourage others to troll her. The Minister was doing her duty and she has offered other dates to the Committee to attend, just as she has attended the Committee many times before.
It is deeply ironic and shocking that people have been so quick to paint an incorrect picture about our female colleagues in this place, especially in the wake of International Women’s Day, when we all used #AskHerToStand and supported working women. After this session, I will take to Twitter to show the Minister support for the brilliant work that she has done. She does not need to apologise to the House in any way.
The shadow Leader of the House mentions the issue of small boats. I have spoken to the Home Office about the impact assessment; it is quite right that we publish it before Committee stage. I think it will be published very shortly.
The hon. Lady focused the bulk of her remarks on the economy. I thank all Members who took part in the Budget debates. Three of the five priorities the Prime Minister set out in order to be accountable to the public —to increase growth, to reduce debt and to halve inflation —focus on the economy. Overall growth, and construction, manufacturing and services growth, are better than forecast. The Office for Budget Responsibility is revising its forecast on GDP in a positive way.
The UK now ranks third globally as a priority investment destination, which is the highest ranking in the history of our nation. We have the lowest rate of unemployment since 1974. The World Bank says we are the best-placed large European nation to do business in. We became the second country in the world to have foreign direct investment worth $2 trillion. Over the last 13 years, we have become the world’s third trillion-dollar tech economy. We have built the largest life science, TV and film sectors in Europe, and we are the second biggest service exporter in the world. I do not know how all that qualifies us to be the sick man of Europe.
The Labour party is either unaware of those facts or blind to them; the hon. Lady certainly does not want to listen to them. Best not do our country down, though, because these achievements are the achievements of our citizens—their entrepreneurship, their graft, their skill, but also their attitude—and we want to give them ever- increased opportunity. That is why we are modernising our economy. That is why we are removing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade—6,000 tariff lines are being removed—and increasing growth, exports and higher wages. That is good for the whole of society.
The statistics that the hon. Lady did not mention were the poverty statistics that have come out today. The figures show that 1.7 million fewer people are in absolute low income after housing costs now than when we took office: that includes 400,000 fewer children, 1 million fewer working-age adults and 200,000 fewer pensioners. Under Labour, benefits were the largest source of income for the poorest working-age households; it is now their earnings. There are now 1 million fewer workless households and an additional 3.8 million people in work.
We stand for personal responsibility and accountability. We want to help people to get on, earn more and keep more of what they earn, and to reward those who help others. Labour, in contrast, stands for dependency, decline and doing our country down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am glad to have heard my right hon. Friend’s response to the party political broadcast from the Opposition.
I want to raise two questions about people overseas. The first is about a constituent who is 32 weeks into a 24-week process to collect in a foreign capital his wife’s passport with the authorised visa because they want to return together to the United Kingdom. While I have been listening to these exchanges, I have had a message saying that the visa has been authorised, but the constituent does not know when they will be able to collect the passport. If I write to my right hon. Friend, will she pass on my question to the Foreign Office’s private office and get this sorted out? It has been going on for far too long.
My second question is about the life-and-death case of a hunted person in Afghanistan. He worked for the regional governor and was associated closely with the United Kingdom. If the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office cannot give him a way out, will I have to ask the Prime Minister next week to sort it out? People who have dedicated their life to helping us should not be left stranded as this person has been.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for both those important points. If he passes the details of both cases to me, I shall take them up immediately with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I associate myself, on this day in particular, with the Leader of the House’s remarks about all those affected by covid, about the family and friends of Keith Palmer and our gratitude to him, and particularly about the dreadful incident yesterday in the Leith dockyard in my constituency? Our thoughts are with all those affected.
In her response, aka “Here’s one I prepared earlier,” the Leader of the House will no doubt ponder the difficulties currently preoccupying my party and swerve those of her own—but hey, that’s politics. Last week, she was a kind of Mystic Meg in reverse: she finally attempted some answers to questions I had posed to her over the last several months. Scotland Office spads really must keep up.
Yesterday was, I suppose, a thrilling day for political anoraks. The current PM finally shared at least a summary of his tax returns, showing very tidy sums indeed. That comes just days after we heard that a majority of UK workers have seen their salaries stagnate over 10 years—a lost decade of earnings. No wonder Downing Street tried to bury the PM’s news! European Research Group rebels and former Tory leaders did not manage to force a governmental U-turn over the Windsor framework, although a number of hon. Members appeared to be missing from the Lobby, so there may be more trouble ahead for the Leader and for her Government’s Whips.
And, of course, there was the former Prime Minister’s evidence session before the Privileges Committee. I will not go into the details of the session itself or the Committee’s activities—that would not be appropriate—but I do want to raise the attacks openly challenging its integrity. Mr Speaker himself has reminded us of the importance of allowing the Committee to complete its work without interference. Frankly, the attacks from some quarters carry the nasty whiff of Trumpian populism again, like “Stop the steal” or “Lock her up.” There is no catchy three-word slogan attached to this situation yet, but perhaps it is just a matter of time.
The Leader of the House served under the former Prime Minister in his Government. As the Cabinet Minister now responsible for this Government’s business, and arguably for defending their reputation, can she tell us what she makes of such attacks on the institutions of this Parliament? These are not internal party problems; they can be seen as an attack on democracy itself. The current Prime Minister pledged that he would lead his Government with
“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
Does the Leader of the House agree that these issues highlight again the need for restored trust and faith in parliamentary democracy, and will she allow the debate that I have called for previously on that very trust and integrity in parliamentary matters?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, and repeat my remarks about the incident in her constituency. All Members will be wishing those who were injured a speedy recovery.
Let me take the hon. Lady’s last point first. She may remember that, during last week’s business questions, I reminded Members that the whole House had asked the Privileges Committee to undertake this task, and that the Committee’s members were doing the House a service in doing so. However, to give her some more comfort, I will make two more points.
First, I refer the hon. Lady to the words of the former Prime Minister himself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), to the Committee yesterday in answer to one of its questions. He said that he was in front of the Committee in recognition of the task that the whole House had set, and because of his respect for Parliament. Those are his words, and those who are trying to say that they are doing the former Prime Minister a favour should heed them.
Secondly, the hon. Lady referred to particular remarks that some Members had made about the Committee. Some of them have built their reputations on being servants of the House, and would never let grubby politics get in the way of true, good, sound argument and also good manners. I would gently point out to those colleagues who mentioned, for example, marsupials that they might have been too full of bounce when they made those remarks. The Committee needs to get on with its work.
The hon. Lady did not mention the poverty statistics that were published today, but she did mention poverty. Let me remind her that our cost of living package is worth £3,300 to every household, that we have uprated pensions and benefits by 10.1%, and that there has been the largest ever cash increase in the national living wage.
The hon. Lady talked about trust, and wanting trust to be restored. That is against the backdrop of her party’s having lost a great deal in the last few weeks. It has lost its leader, it has lost its chief executive, it has lost £600,000, it has lost 30,000 members, it has lost a by-election to us, it has lost collective responsibility, it has lost the will to defend its record and the rose-tinted glasses through which it has viewed its own performance, and this week it has also lost the plot. However, it has the opportunity to find something and to restore something. This could be a fresh start, and the beginning of its actually serving the people of Scotland by focusing on their needs. Whoever is the new leader of the hon. Lady’s party, and the First Minister in Scotland, we stand ready to work constructively with that leader.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My constituent Margaret’s beloved granddaughter died of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, aged just 22. Every week in the UK at least 21 people die of SUDEP, which particularly affects the young. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in Government time on doing more to prevent these deaths, many of which are preventable, and will she join me in wearing something purple on Sunday for SUDEP Day, to remember those who have died and also to praise SUDEP Action and the Maisie Tothill Foundation for all that they are doing to tackle this problem?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, which is obviously timely given the campaign day this weekend. I will very happily wear one of the purple hearts that the charity is handing out, and I join her in paying tribute to all those organisations that are raising awareness and ensuring that people suffering from the condition get the best care and support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Committee was disappointed not to be allocated time for Backbench Business debates on Thursday 30th. I am sure it is not personal. We actually had an application for a debate on the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, but the Government have taken it into their hands to schedule a debate on that very important subject in Government time. Could the Leader of the House’s office please let us know whether we are to get any time for Backbench Business debates in the first week back after the Easter recess? If we are, we will have to determine the subjects of those debates next week.
A number of Members across the House have asked me if I know whether the Government are planning to allocate additional time in this Session for private Members’ Bills. I am not sure why they asked me—they must think I am some sort of shop steward on behalf of Members across the House—but the Session may have several months to go after tomorrow.
Lastly, the Home Office has told my office in Gateshead that there is now no service standard at all for responses in some categories of immigration casework for constituents my office is dealing with. Surely that cannot be right. There are not even any target timescales to get responses for constituents in particular categories of cases. Has the Home Secretary just given up? Can we have a statement from her about when she is going to do something to improve the situation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He will know why the business that I have just announced includes a debate, at his Committee’s request, on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I hope he knows that I champion the interests of his Committee very much, and I fully appreciate that he will need notice of further time for next week. I undertake to provide that, and to look at what he said with regard to private Members’ Bills.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to give me the specifics of what his office has been told by the Home Office. I get regular updates from the Home Office, because it knows that I and all Members of the House are interested in its performance. I have a letter dated 22 March, which charts how the Home Office is crunching through the backlogs and its performance standards. It has made good progress; for example, it has reduced the number of cases on these matters that it is dealing with from 37,000 at the end of August to just over 4,000 today. If he passes me the details of what his office has been told, I shall test that against the information that I have been given, but the Home Office is working hard to raise the standard for all Members.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Leader of the House will know that tomorrow is the 13th and final day scheduled for debate of private Members’ Bills in this Session. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, our hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—and, indeed, those on the Opposition Front Bench—for facilitating in this Session the passage of, I think, a record number of Bills to the other place. In the absence of any further sitting Fridays, can my right hon. Friend explain what will happen if any of those Bills that have gone to the other place are amended? How will we be able to deal with those amendments in this place without any further sitting Fridays?
Will my right hon. Friend take into account that there are now two precedents in recent times when the Session went on much longer—in this case we are talking about six months—than was originally scheduled? In one case there were 18 sitting Fridays—in other words, an additional five—and on the other occasion there were an additional four sitting Fridays. Will she ask the Procedure Committee to advise the House on how to take this matter forward?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me and the whole House the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and all hon. Members who have worked so hard to put through some very important Bills. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have used the communication channels I have to shine a spotlight on a lot of this work, which does not really get much credit and goes unseen. It is very important; we have done some very good things. I have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and other Members have said with regard to time for private Members’ Bills. Whatever happens in the other place, we will always find a way to deal with it.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by a constituent who had been contacted by their housing provider and told that their energy bills were going up by 800%, a figure that I was most shocked by. I contacted that housing association, and it transpired that not only was that an administrative error, but it affected more than 1,000 residents. It is seriously concerning that, if that constituent had not contacted me, residents could have faced that price rise. The housing association has already been named by the Levelling Up Secretary—a process that the Government promised to drive up standards. Will the Leader of the House urge the Levelling Up Secretary to update the House on the progress made by housing associations that have been named and shamed, and the measures being taken with respect to those that are failing?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank and congratulate the hon. Lady on her diligence in spotting the error, alerting her constituents to it and taking it up with the housing provider. She courteously did not name the provider on the Floor of the House; had she done so, I would have repeated it at the Dispatch Box. That is very poor performance on its part. The hon. Lady will know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has strengthened the powers that people have to hold their landlords to account. If she needs any assistance in rectifying the situation, I will be very happy to act on her behalf if she passes the specific details to me.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Leader of the House will no doubt recall that we both ran on a manifesto commitment in 2010 to scrap Labour’s plans for identity cards, and we were supported by the electorate on libertarian and privacy grounds. Given that there has been no public consultation on the matter since, can we please have a debate on any Government plans for the introduction of digital IDs, which have recently been trumpeted by Tony Blair, the heir apparent to the World Economic Forum throne and, interestingly, the original proponent of the identity card plans that the electorate rejected at the ballot box?
Penny Mordaunt
I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, that is our record; it is incredibly important that such matters are debated, but there are no such plans to introduce the measures that he alludes to. Neither, I am afraid, is the mention of the World Economic Forum or some global conspiracy that sits behind all of this remotely accurate or based in fact.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, having seen some of the things that he has put out this week, that—he is very diligent—he might like to do some research as to the origins of some of the things that he has been putting on his Twitter account: for example, that the US Department of Defence is actually responsible for producing covid. The provenance of those falsehoods is Russia and China. If the hon. Gentleman wants to repeat such conspiracy theories and if he believes them, I pity him. If he does not believe them and he is repeating them for another matter, I would ask him to check his behaviour.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Lady will be aware of a protest outside the Indian high commission last Sunday that turned violent. Staff working for the high commission were injured, and the high commission itself was vandalised. I am sure the whole House will agree that there should be no place in our country for such behaviour, and that the Indian high commissioner and his staff should be able to go about their diplomatic duties without fear of such events happening. What further steps will the Home Office take, working with the Metropolitan police, to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that appalling incident. We strongly condemn the vandalism and violent acts that took place outside the Indian high commission in London. It was a completely unacceptable action against the high commission and its staff. There is ongoing work with the Metropolitan police to review the protection measures around the high commission, and any changes will be made to ensure the safety and security of its staff so that they can go about their business, serving both this country and India.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
As the House will know, bus services in Rother Valley—especially the No. 27, which goes through Swallownest—have been cut of late, and residents are very upset. Residents are also aware that transport is devolved, so they and I are calling on the Labour South Yorkshire Mayor to use his franchising powers to bring the buses under public control and to introduce a London-style public transport system, so that routes such as the No. 27 to Crystal Peaks can be reintroduced. Can we have a debate on why the franchising process in South Yorkshire has fallen so many years behind Greater Manchester, which also has a Labour Mayor but has a far better transport system?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He knows that we very much want to support and enable modern and efficient bus services, hence our more than £3 billion investment in bus transformation. I congratulate him on making that call of his Mayor, and he will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Members will recall the large volume of correspondence we all received from constituents last summer relating to backlogs in the Passport Office. We now know that civil servants from the Public and Commercial Services Union will be taking five weeks of continuous industrial action from 3 April because their pay is so low. According to a recent survey, many working at the Passport Office are resorting to food banks. Can we have a debate in Government time on how Ministers intend to negotiate a settlement to avert the need for this industrial action and to end endemic poverty pay across the civil service?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that many Departments across Whitehall are in negotiations with unions, with some considerable success in recent weeks. We want to ensure that people have fair pay, but that that fair pay does not exacerbate the inflation situation we face. The next Home Office questions are not until 22 May, so I will write on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf to ensure that the Home Secretary has heard what he has said today.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the future of grassroots cricket? Village cricket is a force not only for sporting excellence but for social cohesion and social good. We have seen an alarming decline in the number of local clubs, especially in disadvantaged parts of the country. We need a debate to discuss how we can work in partnership to ensure that everyone in the country has access to a cricket club.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all the work he does as chair of the APPG on cricket. I agree entirely with his sentiments. He knows we are working closely with Sport England, UK Sport and national governing bodies to improve access and inclusion, from grassroots level up to elite level. The forthcoming sport strategy will set out further detail on how we can make sport more inclusive. We have a very exciting season ahead of us, and I thank all members of the APPG for the work they do to promote that important sport.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the Leader of the House said that we can expect the impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Bill to be published shortly, but the Bill is to be debated at the beginning of next week. The Government assured us that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would reduce the number of small boat crossings, but we have already seen record levels in January and February 2023. The Government have completely failed. If they have not done proper calculations to produce an impact assessment, how can they make assertions about the effectiveness of the Bill we are debating on Monday and Tuesday?
Penny Mordaunt
I have no argument with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the impact assessment produced as early as possible. I have made representations to that effect, and I am told that it will be published shortly.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
There is clearly a serious crisis in the Metropolitan police. Can we have an urgent debate on how to ensure that the Mayor of London puts in place a plan to deal with the issues raised by the Casey report, and on how to improve the effectiveness of the police in London so that they crack down on street robbery, burglary and car crime?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend raises a serious matter. We have all been shocked by the findings of the Casey review. The Labour London Mayor’s response is very important. Whereas crime has fallen across the country and, when computer crime is taken out of the statistics, has actually halved since 2010, there is a different picture in London. Although the number of assaults with a sharp object is down by 23% nationally, it has gone up by 11% in London. Homicide is up 16.6%. Londoners deserve better, so I think that would be an excellent topic for a debate, and I encourage her to apply for it.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The BBC is proposing to close BBC Singers and to cut its symphony, philharmonic and concert orchestras. So much for the commitment to inform, educate and entertain. What discussions have the Government had with the BBC to try to save these institutions and the UK’s reputation for high-quality classical music?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He is not the first Member to raise the issue, as it has been a common and recurring theme on the Floor of the House since the decision was taken. I understand a consultation is taking place at the moment. The BBC is clearly an independent body, but I note that it has demonstrated great skill at doing pragmatic U-turns in a very short space of time. This might be another opportunity to demonstrate that skill.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Members will be aware that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is currently in Committee in the other place. Earlier this week, six companies called Groceries Ltd were set up at six residential addresses on a single residential road in Seaton. The owners of these fake companies are almost certainly not resident in the UK, but the real residents will have to go through bureaucracy and, potentially, a court appearance to prove that these fake companies should not have been registered. Can the Leader of the House let my constituents know what priority will be accorded to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill in the consideration of Lords amendments by this House?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that serious point. That, and other forms of identity theft, can be enormously distressing for individuals. We have introduced the Bill and other legislation to tackle these issues. If he needs any particular support on those individual cases, I would be happy to assist him. We are here to ensure that legislation is scrutinised and, where possible, improved, so it will be business as usual for this Bill. I am glad we are bringing it forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The hooliganism of Khalistani hooligans outside the Indian high commission on Sunday is a disgrace to this country. This is the sixth time in as many years that the high commission has been attacked in a similar way. As my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), pointed out, security guards were injured, an attempt was made to remove the tricolour and windows were smashed. Khalistani militants are operating across the world; Canada, the United States and Australia saw similar attacks over the weekend. We are harbouring Khalistani terrorists in this country right now. Can we have a debate in Government time on what action we can take to ensure that these terrorists are held to account and banned in this country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for adding his voice to those of others who have condemned this action. We take the security of the Indian high commission extremely seriously and we have been in close contact with the Government of India on this issue. He will know that it will be for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether action involving warrants and criminal proceedings is needed, and I am not able to comment further on that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House might be able to help the Select Committee on Home Affairs by publishing in the Library the letter dated 22 March to which she referred earlier, because we are all keen to know what is going on in the Home Office and that letter might provide some illumination for the Committee.
However, my real question is about the recent Care Quality Commission report on the Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, where the overall rating was that it now “Requires improvement”. I am pleased to see that the care the trust provides is rated as “Good”, but I am disappointed overall for my constituents and the extremely hard-working staff who work in the area, which has huge health and social inequalities. May we have a debate about how health inequalities have widened over the past 13 years, how life expectancy for the poorest is now falling and what the Government are going to do to support the NHS in my constituency, which is now facing the reality of 13 years of a Tory Government?
Penny Mordaunt
On the right hon. Lady’s first point, she will know that I take the performance of Departments and the quality of the services they provide to all Members of this House very seriously. Lord True, the Leader of the House of Lords, and I have been to visit every permanent secretary to discuss where we think improvements can be made, and I have to say that the Home Office writes to me frequently about progress that it is making against concerns. I would be happy to meet the right hon. Lady if she has any outstanding concerns that have not been raised with me to see what further I can do to improve that performance.
The right hon. Lady will know how to apply for a debate on the issue she raises. My constituency is demographically similar to hers and our life expectancy has been improving and great progress has been made in healthcare. However, there is a mixed picture around the country, which is why we want more transparency on healthcare performance in various parts of the country.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Last week, the Prime Minister agreed the deepening of the Australia, UK and US partnership on defence. That is fantastic news for my constituents, as Rolls-Royce’s nuclear section will provide the reactors for Australia’s very first nuclear-powered submarines and that supports jobs, not just in Rolls-Royce, but throughout the supply chain. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Business Secretary on how the Government’s international agreements, including AUKUS, are leading to huge investments and supporting local jobs up and down the country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. AUKUS is an incredibly important partnership. It is much more than a submarine deal, but the interoperability for that particular service will be hugely beneficial to all Five Eyes partners. I am delighted that Rolls-Royce, which is such a fantastic company, one that showcases British innovation and skills, will be building the reactors for all of Australia’s submarines.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
During covid lockdowns, Vimal Pandya helped hundreds of local people across Rotherhithe with shopping, prescriptions and more. Her late Majesty the Queen recognised and commended his exceptional contribution, but the Home Office refuses to do so, preventing him from regularising his stay in the UK by removing his passport. Will the Leader of the House honour her comments about today being the third anniversary of the first lockdown and the extraordinary sacrifice made by so many by providing time to debate Vimal’s exceptional case? He is a local hero who has the gratitude of thousands of my constituents, including me.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He knows that I cannot deliberate on such matters, but I will assist him in raising the case if he has had difficulty in getting a response from the Home Office. If he would pass me the details after this session, I would be happy to do that.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has sown death and destruction across the middle east and has oppressed its own citizens simply for calling for basic human rights protections. However, I am afraid that the issue is now coming much closer to home, because there are growing and well-documented concerns that the IRGC is expanding its activities here in the UK, with 15 recent assassinations foiled, extremism promoted in religious centres and the deplorable intimidation of journalists. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate in Government time about proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. This issue is raised frequently, not only at business questions, but at other times across this House every week. Vahid Beheshti is currently on the 29th day of a hunger strike to highlight the exact issue that my hon. Friend raises. His motivation for this, which was echoed in my hon. Friend’s question, is this organisation’s actions, not just in Iran, but elsewhere in the world, including Ukraine and the United Kingdom. It is hunting down people who criticise the regime, kidnapping them and engaging in other forms of intimidation. I am sure that if my hon. Friend applied for a debate, it would be extremely well attended.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent was diagnosed and treated for spinal cancer, but she has been left with some mobility issues. In her words, she has been fighting the Department for Work and Pensions for four years on her claim for incapacity employment and support allowance. My office made an inquiry to the MPs’ hotline on 31 January. There should be a 15-day turnaround time for a response, but despite my office chasing this up on 23 February, 7 March, 14 March and 16 March, we still do not have a response on my constituent’s case. So may I get a statement on what we can do to get a resolution to this and an analysis of the wider performance of the DWP?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, if he gives me the details, I will assist him in getting his constituent an answer immediately.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the marvellous work being done in London, Brighton, Manchester and Blackpool with opt- out testing, following fantastic campaigns by the Terrence Higgins Trust and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). We are now weeks away from the end of the first year of opt-out testing. In the first 10 months, emergency departments in those areas have diagnosed almost 1,500 people with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. As the anniversary approaches, we will have a full year’s-worth of data to look at. Will she find time for a debate to explore the further roll-out of opt-out testing to all areas of high prevalence?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this very important work, and I pay tribute to all the organisations that have assisted, including the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. My hon. Friend is right, in that the accident and emergency departments involved have diagnosed 268 people with HIV and found a further 139 people who knew that they were HIV positive but were not engaged with services. There are benefits elsewhere, as they found a further 730 people with hepatitis B and 299 people with hepatitis C. I think this is something we should be doing everywhere and I commend all those involved in this initiative and care for making such good progress.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The crisis in NHS dentistry continues to worsen. Only this month, another dental surgery in my constituency, Bell Barn dental surgery, not only stopped new NHS patients from joining, but removed its entire NHS list and became fully private. I have had extensive correspondence with Ministers, tabled written parliamentary questions, and had a debate in this House in January last year on the issue. Could the Leader of the House advise me on what more I could do to encourage her ministerial colleagues to take the issue more seriously?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I know that Ministers take the subject very seriously; I have had many conversations with them about it, because I faced a similar situation in my constituency. He will know about the uplift in funding provided. Quite often, the issue is whether local commissioners are using the flexibility that they have. He asks for my advice. I held a dental summit in my constituency, and brought all the partners round the table. We have new providers and are making good progress. I am happy to offer him any advice and assistance that I can, but as I say, Ministers are taking this seriously. He will know that they are also looking forward to bringing forward reforms.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The hospitality industry has been abandoned by the Government during the cost of living crisis. I invite the Leader of the House to my constituency of Wansbeck to visit Peter and Vicki, of V. Gorman’s Fish and Chips. They have a very popular fish and chip shop—a very successful business that, like many others in our region and indeed nation, is struggling to survive. Sky-high energy costs and increased food prices are crippling their business. Customers are struggling to put food on the table. The challenges facing Peter and Vicki seem insurmountable without Government assistance. Can we have a debate in Government time to assess what support can be given to businesses that are struggling, before it is all too late for far too many?
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not usual for the occupant of the Chair to get an invitation from those speaking on the Floor of the House—I have never heard of that happening before—but I would welcome you to my constituency to enjoy the fine culinary delights of V. Gorman’s fish and chips.
Penny Mordaunt
That is a very kind invitation, which I hope you will take up, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an incredibly important sector, but I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can say that it has not been a focus of ours, and has not received support. It has had bespoke support, ranging from energy support to very considerable rates relief. We will continue to work with the sector, and to support it as we make a recovery.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Since 2011, the number of teachers of the deaf has dropped by almost 20% nationally. A recent written parliamentary question that I tabled regarding the number of teachers of the deaf in and around my constituency was met with the response,
“Information on the number of qualified teachers of the deaf is not collected by the department.”
Yet the testimony of one of my constituents, whose sixth-month-old daughter is deaf, was that although her teacher was amazing, they were overworked and running on empty, due to recent staff shortages. I am deeply concerned that the Government will not get to grips with this crisis unless the Department for Education has collated the necessary data, so will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the workload of teachers of the deaf, and on ensuring that the Department has the relevant data?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important point. Anyone who suffers from any kind of disability, be it hearing loss or a special education need, needs proper, qualified teachers to enable them to reach their full potential. Given that Education questions are a little way off, I will write to the Secretary of State for Education, as well as the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, because I think that this type of data is held in the Cabinet Office, in its equalities section. I will find that out for the hon. Gentleman. I would be very surprised if the data was not held somewhere, but clearly it should be with the Department for Education. I will follow up for him.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
My constituents Matt and Liz are hosting two refugees, Anna and Nastya, who fled Ukraine and came to the UK in their car. They have been able to get a maximum of only 12 months of temporary car registration. To avoid some very high and complicated UK and Ukraine registration charges and import taxes, they are planning to drive back to Dnipro next month to leave their car in the war zone. It is a ridiculous situation. There should be a temporary extension to car registration for Ukrainian refugees—perhaps for the length of their visa. I have written to a Minister, but could we have a statement from the Government on how we can make that happen quickly? Or could the Leader of the House perhaps get me a swift response and resolution to the problem?
Penny Mordaunt
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is crackers. I thank him for raising it. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is leading on support for Ukrainian refugees for the Government, is looking at precisely these sorts of issues, which are coming up now, nearly a year since those refugees arrived here. They should not have to go back into a war zone to deposit their vehicle. From memory, I think that this issue is being looked at. I will write to DLUHC and the Department for Transport. If the hon. Gentleman gives me a reference number for the case, we will try to get it resolved swiftly for him.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My Rutherglen constituent Azeem Ahmed, aged 21, is seeking to launch a new clothing brand, “Equal Clothing”. Azeem has muscular dystrophy, and will create accessible clothing for people with physical disabilities like him. He is also hoping to further the representation of physical disabilities in the fashion industry, and to inspire others to pursue their creative passions. May we have a debate in Government time on furthering accessibility, diversity and equal opportunities in fashion and other industries?
Penny Mordaunt
I very much congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituent on his achievements, and thank her for putting a spotlight on the issue and his work. As part of a Government scheme, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Work and Pensions are working with several disability and access ambassadors on a Cabinet Office initiative that champions this issue across the arts and creative industries. I would be very happy to put the hon. Lady’s office in touch with the relevant parts of Whitehall.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On 23 January, the BBC broadcast an excellent “Panorama” programme that focused on dangerous dogs. It cited a loophole in the regulations on dog breeding. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs following that programme, asking what measures the Government were considering taking to close the loophole. I received a reply, but there is no attempt whatsoever in it to answer my question. Will the Leader of the House organise a seminar for Ministers on how to answer correspondence and questions?
Penny Mordaunt
On the substantive issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, he will know that we have done a huge amount to tighten up regulations on dog breeding and the sale of animals. If he has any further ideas, I would encourage him to persist in raising them with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because it is keen to ensure that we have the best animal welfare in the world; its track record in legislating demonstrates that.
We already have done correspondence training sessions with Departments, correspondence teams, and parliamentary Clerk teams. I have done training on this issue personally, as have my staff, and we will continue to do so. We are making a big push on the training that we offer to Whitehall, and we had all the permanent secretaries in Parliament, talking to the Leader of the House of Lords and me about our expectations. I take this very seriously. If the hon. Gentleman needs any further help getting satisfaction from DEFRA, we stand ready to assist.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
We are in the run-up to the mayoral elections, in which there will be a requirement for a valid form of voter identification. Constituents in my Liverpool, Riverside, constituency who turn up with their 60-plus local travel pass will be turned away from the polling station, unlike people in other parts of the country that have something similar. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss these disparities and people being disenfranchised as a result?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that we do not think that will be a consequence of requiring people to prove who they are when going to vote, and there is a great deal of flexibility over what ID can be used. If she thinks that people in her constituency are being treated differently, I will be happy to write to the Minister with responsibility for the constitution to ensure that there is a legitimate reason why the returning officer in her area will not accept that particular form of ID.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My constituent Mujtaba Kheradmand served for nine years with the technical engineer section of the British Army in Afghanistan. Since the withdrawal, his father has been murdered by the Taliban and his mother and younger sister are now wholly dependent on him. However, they have faced insurmountable difficulties with the UK Government’s Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, which will not consider them as close family members. Can we have a debate in Government time on the situation that he and others face, and the absolutely tiny numbers being processed through the additional family member scheme?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises and, if there is anything that my office can do to assist in getting that resolved, I would be happy to do that. He will know that since Operation Pitting and the evacuation we have been able to extract a number of people—very many hundreds—from Afghanistan. It is often unhelpful to talk about the routes they take and the means by which that is done in a public forum, for reasons that he will understand, but the fact that we have done that for many hundreds of people should give him comfort. I will be happy to look at the specific case and see if I can assist him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday, a joint report from Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Middle East Concern and Article18, entitled “Rights Violations Against Christians in Iran”, was launched in this House. The report highlights the double vulnerability of women as religious minorities in Iran. That country’s political crackdown on its citizens has received a lot of attention in the House, but women from religious minorities are often overlooked in the larger picture. The Leader of the House is always very receptive and I appreciate her responses; will she arrange a meeting with the Foreign Secretary so that we can discuss the recommendations of the report?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point that all Members want to keep the spotlight on. I will certainly pursue the meeting he suggests, and perhaps suggest a meeting with the envoys for gender equality and freedom of religion as well—I am sure that he works with those individuals already, but it is important to discuss these latest situations.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish the hon. Gentleman happy birthday for this weekend. I am sure I speak for the whole House in putting on record our gratitude for the very romantic early-day motion 992 on the 50th anniversary of “I Will Always Love You”.
[That this House celebrates the 50th Anniversary of Dolly Parton’s hit song I Will Always Love You; notes the sentiment behind this song and what it means to so many, including the wife of the hon. Member for Strangford; highlights the contribution this song and her music in general to the industry, especially in the late 1960s, early 1970s and over the last 50 years; further notes the large scale event held at the weekend in Dolly Parton’s multi-million dollar theme park at Pigeon Forge in East Tennessee as part of the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the song, that was written as a farewell to her business partner and mentor Peter Wagoner; and wishes Dolly continued success as she entertains and encourages so many through her music and inspirational character.]
I say that not “Just Because I’m a Woman”, but because the hon. Gentleman is so diligent, working more than “9 to 5”. Every week without fail at the end of business questions we look at who has the last question and we say, “Here You Come Again” and it is “Gonna Be You”—with apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for breaking protocol. The hon. Gentleman has cheered us all up again, as he always does.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
On this occasion, Andy Slaughter is last.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I will grant it as my birthday present to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am taking last place behind him.
Afghan refugee children who have already spent 18 months in hotels are being removed out of London—not to settled accommodation, but to other hotels several hundred miles away. That breaks the Home Office’s own guidelines on moving children in the middle of exam periods. Asylum-seeking children are having to travel four hours a day to continue their education, again after compulsory relocation and despite the fact that under guidelines they should be placed no more than an hour’s travel from where they are housed. Will the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary either to follow her own rules, or to come to the House to explain why she refuses to do so?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises very serious matters. The reason that we have those protocols and procedures in place is to ensure that children and young people are given every possible chance to recover from the trauma they have gone through and to get on with their lives, and that they are safe and able to access education. We have put those rules in place for a reason. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has raised the specific examples that he is concerned with, but I urge him please to lean on my office as well. These issues may be widespread, but it does sound as if they are very localised and because of local pressures. The final thing I would say to him is that this is an indication of how under pressure the system is and how inappropriate hotel accommodation is for families. That is why we are bringing forward measures on illegal migration, and I encourage him and all Members to consider that when the Illegal Migration Bill comes to Committee next week.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for answering the business question and join her in her felicitations to the hon. Member for Strangford.
Post Office: Horizon Compensation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the statement, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. As has been said to the House on previous occasions, there are relevant active legal proceedings in the Court of Appeal. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of matters sub judice to allow reference to those proceedings, as they may concern issues of national importance. However, I urge Members to exercise caution in what they say and to avoid referring in detail to cases that remain before the Court of Appeal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Post Office and compensation for the Horizon scandal.
The Horizon scandal was a truly appalling episode in this country’s history. Our postmasters—those hard-working, thoroughly decent people, who give so much to our communities right across the country—were made to suffer horrifically and for many years. We want the postmasters who fought to expose that injustice through the High Court to receive compensation on a similar basis to their peers. I put on record our thanks to Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, and to many others, journalists and parliamentarians, who were key to the campaign.
On 7 December we announced the outline of the group litigation order compensation scheme. I am delighted to tell the House that from today, the scheme is open to receive claims. Details of how to claim can be found on the gov.uk website. I am writing to GLO members today with further information and placing copies of that information, the scheme application form, scheme guidance and principles, and questions and answers for the scheme in the Library of the House.
Our legal powers to pay compensation expire in August 2024. We certainly intend and expect to make payments much faster than that. We said in December that we would follow an alternative dispute resolution model. We have appointed Dentons as claims facilitators to promote the fair and prompt resolution of each case. We have also appointed Addleshaw Goddard as our external legal adviser on the scheme. They have been instructed to recommend fair offers.
In December we also announced an independent advisory board to oversee the scheme. Reports of its meetings are available on gov.uk. I put on record my thanks to board members Professor Chris Hodges and Professor Richard Moorhead, as well as to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot—who is in the Public Gallery—both of whom have long been tireless campaigners for the wronged postmasters. I am pleased to announce that the remit of the advisory board will be expanded to cover the historical shortfall scheme, postmasters’ suspension pay, and compensation for postmasters with overturned convictions.
I am pleased to report that good progress is also being made by the Post Office on compensating other groups of postmasters. As of 20 March, the Post Office has paid out more than £17.6m in compensation to postmasters with overturned historical convictions, 79 postmasters have received interim compensation payments, and 49 non-pecuniary claims have been paid. The Post Office has reached full and final settlement in four cases.
On the historic shortfall scheme, 98% of eligible claimants had been issued offers of compensation, totalling £90.2 million, as of 21 March. I recognise that in recent weeks concerns have been raised about the tax position of claimants in that scheme. It has always been the intention of the scheme to return postmasters to the position that they should have been in had they not been affected by the Horizon scandal. The Government want to see fair compensation for all victims, and my Department is working urgently to address that issue with the Post Office, the Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
As we talk about financial compensation schemes, we must never lose sight of the human cost of this dreadful injustice. That is why, as the House will know, Sir Wyn Williams is chairing a statutory inquiry to establish what went wrong, and to identify those responsible for what has happened so that, where possible, we can hold them to account. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it.
I too begin by paying tribute to Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, which has campaigned for decades for compensation, justice and the truth. In addition, I recognise the campaigning efforts of Members from across this House on behalf of their constituents, and join the Minister in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in particular. There can be no doubt that he has played an instrumental role in helping to chart a route to justice for thousands of people. We all wholeheartedly thank him for that.
The House is in unanimous agreement that the Horizon scandal has been a shocking injustice. Indeed, I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest scandals of modern times. As we continue to hear in the public inquiry the accounts of lives torn apart by the scandal, we can never lose sight of how devastating its impact has been on those victims. Today’s announcement of the group litigation order compensation scheme is very welcome. I was pleased to hear about the appointment of claims facilitators and external legal advisers—in the interests of full transparency, I declare that I am a former employee of Addleshaw Goddard.
I thank the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for their work on this matter. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that I feel duty-bound to put on record the level of frustration that many people have felt about how protracted their fight for justice has been, particularly the 555 litigants excluded from the original historic shortfall scheme. Indeed, one of the first speeches that I made from this Dispatch Box as shadow Business Secretary was in support of calls for compensation to be expanded to them—a campaign that was established long before that exchange nearly 18 months ago. The most important step now is for that compensation to reach victims as quickly as possible, so may I press the Minister on the steps that we will all take to ensure that the process is completed as swiftly as possible?
I am also grateful for the update on the historic short- fall scheme. The Government’s ambition was for that scheme to be completed at the end of last year, but in December, the then Secretary of State said that 93% of eligible claimants had been issued offers of compensation. The Minister has given the figure of 98% today, so can he confirm that the scheme’s completion is imminent? I also was pleased that he raised the tax issue. Will he commit to coming back to the House when he can to provide more information on the work that he said he is doing?
Today’s announcement is certainly welcome, but as we all await the conclusion of the public inquiry, and its recommendations, surely this is one of many steps that we need to take to make amends for what has been the most insidious of injustices.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words, and for welcoming the statement and the opening of the scheme. I absolutely concur that we should all be grateful for the work of my predecessors—not least, as he said, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we want to do this as quickly as possible. I am very pleased with the work of the advisory board, which is helping with the scheme. The scheme is based on a set of principles that should mean that compensation is delivered more rapidly and that there is a clear route to claims being settled quickly. We very much hope that that is the case—we want to get those payments out of the door at the earliest possible opportunity.
Again, we are working at pace on the tax issue. Clearly that is a matter of law as well as of tax policy, so getting that right is key. We have to work with the Treasury and HMRC to ensure that we get it right, but that is a determination and a commitment that I am very happy to make. We hope to make a further announcement on that work shortly.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
At last. I remind the House that 27 people have died in the wait for justice. That said, I commend the Minister and his processor for their fabulous compassion, energy and drive in delivering what we are seeing today. However, there are people I represent among the 555 who have still not received any compensation for a variety of reasons, so can the Minister tell the House whether the scheme, under its brilliant advisory board—some of whom are in the Chamber—will cover all 555 claimants?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. He is absolutely right that it has taken too long and people have died waiting for compensation. That is totally unacceptable, and the worst part of that delay was the obfuscation and denials of the Post Office when clear evidence that something was sadly amiss was brought to light by parliamentarians. Yes, it is absolutely the case that we want every single person of the 555 who merit compensation to get it so that it is fair across the board—so that, between them, the three schemes deliver fair outcomes and there is parity across them. I am determined to make sure that that happens, as is the advisory board. We will report back to Parliament regularly to ensure that Members are aware that that is the case.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, I welcome what he outlined, and, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I am very grateful to him for keeping me updated.
We now have three streams for former postmasters and sub-postmasters who were affected by Horizon to claim compensation—that is really important. The Minister has talked about achieving parity, and I think he will agree that that must be done. I would be keen to for him come back to the House to tell us that it is happening and that the latest compensation scheme will not run out of time.
I think it worth mentioning again the hard work done by the JFSA, by journalists such as Nick Wallis, by Members of this House and by former Members who are now in the other place. They have all been of great help to the APPG. I came into the House not knowing anything about Horizon—I wish I did not know what I know now. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on grabbing hold of this matter and making things happen. So many people will be grateful.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and for all the work she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. She is right to say that there are three separate schemes, and there was probably a good reason for that at the time. It is not ideal to have three schemes, and Sir Wyn Williams referred to that in his comments, but we are all keen to see consistency across the three schemes. That is why I welcome the work of the advisory board, which will cover all three schemes to make sure there is consistency across them. I am determined to make sure that happens, and I will keep her fully informed on progress.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a terrible scandal, and Post Office Ltd is not fit for purpose. Thirty years ago, when I was a Post Office Minister, I tried to privatise this body, and it is still in a mess. Only last week, I had a meeting with sub-postmasters led by David Ward, one of my excellent local sub-postmasters, and they are calling for something good to come out of this scandal—namely, that we pass control directly to sub-postmasters, for instance through mutualisation.
We have the chief executive of Post Office Ltd paying himself a salary five times more than the Prime Minister, with a bonus of £400,000 a year on top of that. We have banking remuneration to Post Office Ltd coming to £205 million, of which only 27% went to sub-postmasters. We have 11,000 sub-postmasters in a state of managed decline, earning virtually the minimum wage. I wrote to the Minister on 14 March, so he will have received the letter by now. I do not expect him to reply immediately to my question, but will he at least have an open mind about trying to take us forward and preserve the wonderful world of our sub-postmasters, particularly in rural England?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points, and I also hope that some good comes out of this terrible scandal. I am a big fan of mutual organisations. I am happy to have a conversation with him. I will respond in writing, and perhaps we can meet following that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and advance notice of it, and the members of the advisory board for their important work.
I want to focus on one particular sentence of the Minister’s statement, which is very important. He said that the intention of the compensation scheme is
“to return postmasters to the position that they should have been in had they not been affected by the Horizon scandal”.
He will know that that has an important meaning in law for the calculation of compensation. Some victims of this scandal feel that they have not been fully put back into the position they would have been in had they not been a victim of this scandal. Can he confirm for those victims what process they should follow to ensure that the compensation scheme delivers on its intention as stated on the Floor of the House today?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the Select Committee. There is a clear process in the GLO scheme for a claim being submitted and then settled. There is claims facilitation if a case cannot be settled, and an independent panel following that. Through those processes, there should be a mechanism to get fair compensation. If he has evidence of people who feel they are in the situation that he refers to, I would be keen to meet him to discuss those cases.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I started campaigning on this issue only weeks after being elected to the House in 2010 when I was approached by two of the victims of this scandal, my constituents Mr and Mrs Rudkin. Thanks to the diligent work of Ron Warmington and his team of forensic accounts at Second Sight, by 2015, I and other Members of this House with an interest, the Post Office and, importantly, the Government were well aware of the overwhelming evidence produced that showed these convictions were at least unsafe and that there had been a huge miscarriage of justice. That was in 2015. Will the Minister tell the House why it has taken a further eight years to get to a position where convictions have been overturned and compensation is now beginning to be paid out to the victims? How will we hold to account those who are responsible for this prolonged injustice against the sub-postmasters?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his work; he is a long-standing campaigner on this issue. He is right to point to the work of Second Sight, which was pretty critical to our getting to this point. The work of Members across the House in drawing attention to these issues shows Parliament at its best and what it is capable of doing, and I pay tribute to all Members of this place and of the Lords who have done that.
As I said, it took too long initially for the Post Office to hold its hands up and say that things were wrong. It had to be held to account in a court, which resulted in the settlement in December 2019. I agree that we need this as quickly as possible. It is also important that we get these schemes right. We want to make sure we get the compensation right the first time, and that is why it has taken a little bit of time, but we are in a much better place now. We are keen to get these payments out by August 2024, and ideally a lot quicker than that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as a member of the GLO advisory board. Today would not have happened without Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance’s tireless campaign over many years. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and the Minister for the way in which they have approached this scheme. Now the test is to get money to these claimants as quickly as possible.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to the advisory board’s request to extend our remit to cover both the historical shortfall and the overturned conviction schemes, but he knows what I am going to say now. There must be equalisation of the schemes, to ensure that individuals under the historical shortfall scheme are not taxed or liable to bankruptcy clawback. He will not be surprised to know that that will be one of our first requests at the first meeting.
I thank the Minister for his work. This is a historic step forward, but there is still a lot of distrust, and the postmasters and victims will not be happy until those who were responsible for this scandal are held to account in a court of law. That obviously will come after the public inquiry, but their day of reckoning needs to come.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his work, including on the advisory board, which is much appreciated. He is right to reference Alan Bates, as I did. I spoke to Alan this morning, and he is pleased with the steps we have taken, as I think the right hon. Gentleman is, but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. We need to make sure these schemes work properly. When he and Lord Arbuthnot asked to expand the board’s remit to the other two schemes, I was pleased to support that wish. He is right to point to tax and bankruptcy. We need to make sure these people are treated fairly across all three schemes. We will leave no stone unturned—and I know he will not either—in making sure that happens.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the Minister, who has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps in following this up. It is right that wrongly convicted postmasters get the justice and the compensation they deserve. I echo the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). As a former postmaster, I ask the Minister to turn his attention to a decent investment in the branch network and a decent remuneration and commission package for postmasters, who, operating a stand-alone post office, cannot make it work at the moment because the package is not good enough. Slightly cheekily, may I also ask the Minister to wish my constituents Jigen and Nisha Patel all the best for tomorrow, when I will formally open the new post office in Sheringham on the north Norfolk coast?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend speaks as one of the few experienced sub-postmasters who have taken a seat in this place, and I appreciate his work in this area. We are looking at the future sustainability of the Post Office, and that will require investment. It is important that we get to a position where there is a bright future for the network and for the sub-postmasters who work in it and they have sustainable businesses. I am keen to liaise with him as we move towards that position. Of course, I congratulate the Patels on their new post office and hope the launch goes well.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Two of my constituents who were innocent victims of this scandal recently contacted me to raise their concerns about the appropriateness of Herbert Smith Freehills as what they describe as aggressive litigators of compensation claims on behalf of the Post Office, as well as concerns about the level of Government and independent oversight of the process operated by the Post Office with public money. Could the Government look into this situation again and report back to the House?
Kevin Hollinrake
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be happy to look into the situation. The solicitors involved in this are Dentons and Addleshaw Goddard. We believe they are the right people to help us make sure these claims are fair and to facilitate negotiations between the two parties, but I am keen to talk to him about any issue he wants to raise with me.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My constituent served a prison sentence as a result of a prosecution by the Post Office. His conviction was subsequently overturned on the recommendation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but because he pleaded guilty on the advice of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Post Office is saying that his case is not a malicious prosecution, and therefore he is not included in the scheme and is not to be compensated. It is only offering him what it would cost the Post Office to defend his case if he were to take it to court. Can the Minister say whether my constituent will be included in the schemes he has outlined today?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very sorry to hear what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent; that must have been a devastating situation for him. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to talk about individual cases on the Floor of the House today—I do not think that Madam Deputy Speaker would want me to do so—but I am very happy to liaise with the hon. Gentleman. If he writes to me, we can take that up on his behalf.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). The emotional toll that this tragedy has had on the Horizon victims and their families is devastating, particularly those who passed away before they were exonerated, one of whom was a constituent of mine. New evidence has revealed that the Post Office-Horizon help desk was a toxic and resentful environment where racism was reportedly a daily occurrence. What investigation have Ministers made of that workplace culture and how it may have hindered the system error from coming to light sooner?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the emotional distress that many people felt, and the fact that some people have passed away while this process has been ongoing, a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). To be clear, any compensation can, of course, be paid to family members in that situation—a situation that, clearly, is entirely unacceptable. The Sir Wyn Williams inquiry will look at all the different factors at play in terms of why this happened, what could have been done, what should have been done, and who is responsible. I am absolutely determined to make sure that we learn the lessons from it, but not just that: if people can be held to account for what they have done, they should be, and I will do everything I can to make sure that they are.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2023
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Act 2023
Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023
UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023
Investment Security Unit: Scrutiny
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Darren Jones, Chair of the Select Committee, will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Government Ministers. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I rise today to give a statement on behalf of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in respect of our memorandum of understanding with the Government on scrutiny of the use of powers contained in the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the time to do so.
As the House knows, the National Security and Investment Act established a new statutory regime for Government scrutiny of, and intervention in, investments for the purposes of protecting national security. The Act applies to a wide range of sectors, which themselves are broadly defined, and—unlike in other countries—covers all transactions, not just those involving foreign investment. The investment security unit was then established within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to operationalise the Act. At that stage, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was the decision maker.
When the Bill was going through the House, the Government confirmed their preference that scrutiny of the use of these powers should be done by my Committee. There was a debate in this House and in the other place about whether a departmental Select Committee had sufficient processes, people and protections in place to scrutinise secret information, and right hon. Members from the Intelligence and Security Committee understandably argued that their Committee was best placed to do that work. However, the Government were not minded to accept amendments for a statutory regime of scrutiny in the Bill, nor to change their position on which Committee should have oversight of the regime. As such, Ministers committed to entering into a memorandum of understanding with my Committee to set out how information would be made available to allow us to do our work.
While negotiating that memorandum, my Committee established a new National Security and Investment Sub-Committee and appointed special advisers. We are also grateful to the House for providing us with national security subject specialist staff with relevant levels of security clearance. In addition, we undertook a short study visit to the United States to understand how congressional oversight of that country’s equivalent regime is conducted.
I am pleased to inform the House that the memorandum of understanding between the Government and my Committee has now been agreed, and that we have published it today in our report. I will not test the patience of the House by reading out the whole memorandum, but I will just make two points. First, it has been agreed that scrutiny will largely be done in private and, in so far as it relates to individual transactions, will be done retrospectively following any appeal or legal challenge. This was agreed to prevent actual or perceived political interference in quasi-judicial decision making, and means that we operate in line with our counterparts in the United States. Secondly, the bulk of our work will focus on the effect of the legislation on investment in the United Kingdom and the effectiveness of Government operations.
When the Committee decides that it wants to understand individual transactions in more detail, we will be able to request information from the Government via a private explanatory memorandum, which we will not publish. If the Committee wishes to see more sensitive information that is not contained in the explanatory memorandum, I as Chair of the Committee will be able to request access to such information, and will be briefed on equivalent to Privy Council terms or by notification under the Official Secrets Act. Lastly, while the recent machinery of Government changes have resulted in the investment security unit moving to the Cabinet Office and the decision maker now being the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Government have confirmed that they still intend for scrutiny of the Act to be undertaken by my Committee and, soon, its successor Committee on the basis set out in today’s report and the letter from the Minister received by other relevant Committees.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I welcome this report, especially paragraph 11. We have always welcomed scrutiny of our decisions. As the hon. Member rightfully pointed out, the investment security unit has left the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I am still responsible and we now sit in the Cabinet Office. Obviously, we want to support businesses to ensure that investment in the UK continues, while also protecting our national security.
I wondered whether the hon. Member could reflect on the fact that the NSI Act is a leading investment screening regime, and that we have good relationships with like-minded partners through which we share best practice and help other countries with similar regimes. Perhaps he could also comment on when I will be in front of him and his Select Committee, because we do not shy away from scrutiny. Finally, perhaps he would like to indulge the House and thank all of the investment security unit staff who worked with us on the unit and on securing this MOU.
Darren Jones
I thank the Minister for her question. Of course, for a long time, she was a member of my Committee. She pushed me quite hard to ensure that we got very effective scrutiny of this legislation, so I look forward to working with her collaboratively on the exchange of information as it relates to our interests as a Select Committee.
The Minister invites me to thank her officials, as well as my Clerks on the Select Committee, and I should do so. It took, I think, nearly 13 months to get to this point, sometimes with some frustration, but we got there. However, much of the work has been done and much of the detail has been agreed at length by our officials and Clerks, and we are very grateful to them for their contributions.
As for when the Minister will be summoned to my Select Committee, it is unusual that people are keen to come and be cross-examined by me and my colleagues on the Committee, but we look forward to welcoming her in due course.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Can I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, but also say how disappointed I am with it—not from his point of view, but from the Government’s? The Intelligence and Security Committee, which I sit on, is the only Committee that can look at the highest classification of information. My hon. Friend even admits that, under this process, he might be able to be given some information, but not all. It would be down to the Secretary of State. The memorandum says that the ISU is going to the Cabinet Office. Has he had an indication or clarification of which bit of the Cabinet Office? If it is the National Security Secretariat, that is already under the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Darren Jones
I am in the unusual circumstance, as a member of the Opposition, of having to put the Government line to my right hon. Friend. I merely recognise, as he will know from our extensive conversations, that it has always been the case, in line with the Osmotherly rules for Select Committees, that we do not have a statutory power to summon information, as he does on the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that there is a presumption that information will be shared with us. He will know that, if that information is not exchanged in a timely and ready fashion for us to do our work, the Committee will escalate those issues via the Committee, the usual channels or on the Floor of the House. As to my right hon. Friend’s question on where the unit resides, it resides in the Cabinet Office. I assume it is within the National Security Secretariat. I think he is therefore suggesting that that means the ISC has oversight. I know full well that he and his colleagues will make use of their powers to try to request information from the Government in their work.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and recognise that a huge amount of work has gone into it, including with the Government. I thank him for the engagement he has had with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the Chairman of the ISC, of which I, too, am a member. I know that my right hon. Friend would be here if he could be.
If I may, I will put to the hon. Gentleman what the problem with the arrangement might be. He has said already that arrangements are to be made for the viewing of material that would normally be at a higher classification than members of his Committee would be able to see, but those arrangements as set out in the memorandum are clearly described as “exceptional”. Is it not the case that the sub-committee of his Committee that he will set up to deal with this material is likely to deal with that sort of classified material on a routine basis? Is there not an advantage in having staff and members of a committee who are used to dealing with this type of material? Through no fault of their own, neither his Committee nor its staff will be used to that.
Darren Jones
There is an interesting question there, to which none of us knows the answer: how routine will it be for us to have to look at either commercially sensitive or national security-sensitive information about individual transactions? From our study visit to the United States, it seemed that most of the transactions were operationalised, and had not become political or been escalated to a committee level, because the issues were seen to be sensible, small or below de minimis thresholds.
There will be examples where there is more political interest in a particular transaction. In the past year, for example, where the 2021 Act has been operational, the vast majority of the notifications that my Committee has received have not warranted our having to look at the national security information. For some cases, such as Newport Wafer Fab, the industrial implications of that decision will warrant our looking at that information in more detail. Under this memorandum of understanding, we will request that information when we are permitted to do so—after the period of judicial review and appeal has closed—so that we may understand whether the Act is being used in the way it is supposed to be used, without deterring investment in the interests of workers and business in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to staff. As I said in my statement, the House has kindly provided the Committee with additional staff, who are national security specialists and have a range of security clearances. In the MOU, there are procedures and processes for the handling, holding, storage and use of information, both between my Committee and my Clerks, but also where necessary within Government facilities.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Just to endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), I know that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has behaved in an admirably collegiate manner throughout. On the issue of exceptional access to highly sensitive information, the MOU makes clear that members of the Committee may have sight of that information, but they will not be able to retain it or analyse it, and the Committee will not have staff who can keep that information, report back on it and advise the Committee’s members once they have been able to analyse it. That is in contrast to the ISC, is it not, which has all those things. Is that really appropriate? How does he feel he will navigate that paradox?
Darren Jones
We have to give the MOU a whirl and see how it works. I understand the right hon. Member’s concerns. My only point is that I am not sure there will be lots of documents we will want to host in a safe special location for us to keep returning to. Our job broadly is to look at the implications for investment and for business in the UK. When something is escalated from a transactional basis to a political level, we need to understand why Ministers have made their decisions.
As much as I would like it to be the case, it is not for the Committee to be the Government, and it is not for us to make different decisions from Ministers. Ministers—the right hon. Member’s colleagues—are empowered to make the decisions they make. It is for my Committee merely to have oversight and scrutiny of how they have come to those decisions and to recommend improvements, should the Committee see fit to do so. While the right hon. Gentleman’s point is correct factually—the ISC has a whole range of assets and processes and people who are not available to my Committee—I am not sure in practice how much of that information would need to be processed in that way for us to do an effective job of scrutinising the use of the legislation.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I welcome the work that has been done to get the MOU agreed. I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s Committee will do important work in this space, but like my fellow members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I think this is frankly an unsatisfactory situation. I hope the Government will listen to the points that have been made today. Will the Chair of the Select Committee be willing to report back to the House on how these processes are operating? For the reasons given, it seems impractical for his Committee to give the detailed scrutiny that is needed.
Darren Jones
I hope the right hon. Member recognises that, albeit I have been in the House for the short period of six years, I am not a timid politician. If I am blocked or prevented from doing the work I have been asked to do by the House, I will make it clear that is the case. I am happy to come back to the House as and when appropriate to report on the scrutiny of the Committee. As the Bill was passing through the House, I and my Committee were, to be honest, fairly ambivalent about which Committees did the work and on what basis. We were open to other Committees and colleagues making their case, but ultimately the Government have made the decision, and we have responded to that and set up our processes in the best possible way. I reassure her that if they do not work well enough, I will certainly be back here to make that case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement.
Backbench Business
World Down Syndrome Day
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Down Syndrome Day.
I am grateful to have secured this debate, and I thank colleagues from all parties for their support in being able to do so. Two days ago I was honoured and privileged to be able to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom at the United Nations in New York on the 12th World Down Syndrome Day. It was an acknowledgement of the United Kingdom’s role as the country that has been the first to legislate in this area, of which we should be extremely proud. It was important that we took that opportunity to make the case.
When we passed the Down Syndrome Act 2022, it was a recognition of the strength of our electoral system. With the first-past-the-post system, whatever its handicaps, we are real constituency MPs with real constituents, and the fact that we are exposed to the complex problems they have enables us to be responsive to their needs and them to know who to go to when they need help with the problems they face. I also think that passing this legislation was a recognition of something we do not always do as politicians. One of the intrinsic problems in a democratic system is that we tend to get more credit for dealing with a crisis than preventing one. One of the key elements of this legislation is that it shows that Parliament can anticipate problems before they become a serious crisis-ridden issue. I will come back to that, if I may.
I thank all the charities associated with Down syndrome for the work they have done since the passage of the legislation, and I thank all those voluntary groups who helped with the consultation. I particularly thank the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, not least for its support for our function in Parliament, which I was unable to attend due to being in New York. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) who stood in so expertly to chair such a successful event.
The theme for World Down Syndrome Day this year was “With Us Not For Us”, and thinking about legal capacity and supported decision making is incredibly important.
We all expect and take for granted that we can make decisions about our lives—from where we live and whom we live with to what we study and where we work—and because we take these choices for granted, we must not forget that other people do not necessarily have the ability to do so. It is therefore absolutely right that people with Down syndrome are involved in all the decisions that affect their lives.
As I said when I was in New York, when a child is born with an extra copy of their 21st chromosome, they enter a different path in life from the rest of the population and so, inevitably, do their families, who will face different challenges. Those challenges come, as we all know, in the form of medical problems, educational needs and long-term care challenges. The consequential change in life expectancy was one of the main reasons that we passed the legislation in the first place. I believe that every individual with Down syndrome has the same right to life, quality of life, dignity and independence that the rest of the population take for granted.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the right hon. Member on today’s Backbench Business debate and the Act that he got through Parliament. Whether a child attends a special educational needs and disabilities-specific school or a mainstream school with SEND support is not dependent on any particular condition or diagnosis, but dependent on where the child’s needs can be best met. Children with Down syndrome can thrive in mainstream education, so does the right hon. Member agree that increasing awareness of the condition among education professionals, parents and all children is important in ensuring that children with Down syndrome have access to the right learning environment for them?
Dr Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, because we can pass as much legislation as we like, but if the professionals at the sharp end, who are required to implement any changes or guidance, do not have sufficient understanding of the problem they are facing, we are all at a deficit in our response. I think the issue of professional education is so important not just for teachers, for whom it obviously is important, but for the medical profession, the social work profession and those involved in local government, who will deal with some of those issues relating to care, particularly long-term care. I think it is an extremely important issue.
I was able in the UN debate to show how the United Kingdom has a very proud record in legislation in this general area. The UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that the rights and liberties of disabled people are protected. We ratified the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in 2019. Internationally, our disability inclusion and rights strategy sets out the ambition to embed disability inclusion across all our diplomacy, policy and programmes. The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people in England, Wales and Scotland from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. We also have the Mental Capacity Act 2005, covering England and Wales, to ensure that every attempt is made to support someone to make decisions about their own lives, and that of course includes people with Down syndrome.
I would like, if I may, to say a word about the Down Syndrome Act and remind us why we passed this legislation. Primarily, it was about empowerment. The Act legislates not for Down syndrome, but for people with Down syndrome. It requires the Government in England to produce Down syndrome-specific guidance relating to health, social care, education and housing services. I hope that Members from Scottish and Welsh constituencies may be able to update the House on how this legislation is being adapted and implemented there. I will come back, if I may, to the point about its being Down syndrome- specific, because I have some concerns that that may be being lost in some parts of the consultation process.
It is important to remind ourselves about the legislation. Under the Act, public authorities such as hospitals, schools or social care providers cannot ignore the guidance when commissioning and delivering services. The guidance must set out what the unique needs of people with Down syndrome are, and what public authorities should be doing to ensure that the support needs of people with Down syndrome are met to enable them to live fulfilling lives. I will come back to this element of the guidance, because one of the issues we discussed in Committee—this has been a controversial issue in this House in relation to other legislation—is when does the guidance become instruction. If Ministers are issuing guidance that is in effect instruction, surely that should be laid before the House of Commons so that we can recognise the importance of that and scrutinise how ministerial authority is being used.
I think that for too long there have been too few levers available for individuals, families and their advocates, including us as Members of Parliament when it comes to getting fair treatment for our constituents with Down syndrome. After all, what is the point of rights in legislation if we cannot enforce them and if there is no mechanism to do so? That was one of the key elements we discussed during the passage of the legislation, and it led to two very important and, I think, innovative changes: the first is on parliamentary scrutiny, and the second is on individual empowerment.
One of the problems we have faced before is that, when Ministers issue guidance, there is very little ability for parliamentary Select Committees to take direct oversight of it. One of the principles we established—and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is now the Secretary of State for Education, for her support in establishing this principle—is that if the guidance is in fact instruction, the guidance would be laid before Parliament, which of course means that the Education Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and local government can all look at it in real time.
One of the things we considered was whether we would have to put a sunset clause on this legislation to enable Parliament to look at it again. The mechanism that we decided on—I think rightly—in this House and in the other place was that, in publishing the guidance, we would have real-time oversight, because when our constituents bring problems to us, we are all able to write to the Chair of whatever Committee it is and ask them to look into that particular aspect of how the Down Syndrome Act is functioning. That gives us, as Members of Parliament, a lever that we did not have before when we simply wrote a letter to a Minister and hoped for the best, which is not sufficient to implement the rights of our constituents in the way that I think we envisaged during the passage of the Act.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
This will be very important for people in the Down syndrome community who believe they are being diagnostically overshadowed and that things are being missed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that that is particularly important when enforcing someone’s rights in relation to healthcare?
Dr Fox
It is. Diagnostic overshadowing is very important, in that we should not miss things in people with Down syndrome because we are looking the other way, or we are distracted by the diagnosis and not looking sufficiently at the person. Greater professional education—and this goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier)—is a key part of the empowerment of the individuals for whom this legislation was produced. I know from my own medical education that there was not a great deal of it that involved us learning about specific needs. For the medical profession, the sort of overlooking that the hon. Gentleman describes is a real risk if the thought is not there that someone may see a different position from the one they should because of the very overshadowing that he describes. I imagine he may enlighten us further on that particular issue, and I hope he will because it is a real issue that needs to be examined fully.
The second important change in our legislation was that we included in it the need for a named individual on the new integrated care boards to be responsible for the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act. A very senior Member of this House said to me during the passage of the Bill in Committee, “Do the Government realise the floodgates that they may be opening in agreeing to this?” I said that I was not sure, but that it really was not my problem. I think this is a tremendous innovation, because all too often we have an anonymised bureaucracy when it comes to the delivery of the things that Parliament intends. We can vote for things in this House and, with taxpayers’ money, we can fund them, but if we do not know who is responsible for the delivery in our own locality, it becomes difficult for us as Members of Parliament to know who to get in touch with.
The de-anonymisation of the civil service, which is something I have long and profoundly believed in doing, received its first outing in that Act. It may be a by-product —in my mind it was not that; it was an essential principle —but none the less it is extremely important. With this new system, for the first time, individuals, families and advocates for people with Down syndrome will know who is responsible. For once, there will be a named person in our system who people can turn to for either assistance or redress, depending on the nature of the problem. I hope we will extend that principle further in the provision of public services. For too long in this country, taxpayers have provided the funding, but they do not have accountability in the delivery mechanisms of those public services. It is, in many ways, a quiet revolution that I hope this Act will usher in. It is a principle and a precedent that has been much understated in the interpretation of what Parliament has done.
The guidance itself has been subject to long and detailed consultation, and I look forward to the draft publication in the summer. The Government face a number of challenges with this, which are worthy of debate. One question that was frequently raised in both Committee and the House was, “What about those with problems similar to those with Down syndrome; are we effectively creating a ladder of preferment in the provisions of public services?” Quite wisely, the Minister at the time said that it would be reasonable to consider those with overlapping problems at the same time as we were looking at the implementation of the Act. I say gently, however, that while that is absolutely right, we must also remember that the Act is specific to Down syndrome. When it comes to Down syndrome there is no doubt about the diagnosis, and unlike many other conditions where there are overlapping symptoms and signs to consider, there is no doubt about it. Down syndrome is not a subset of other conditions or of learning disabilities, although on a Venn diagram there will be a huge overlap; it is a specific condition and we must regard it as such.
I would like the Government to consider some specific areas, one of which relates to education rather than health. This is a formal request to Ministers to add Down syndrome as a separate category to the annual school census. Why? Because there is currently no Down syndrome-specific school data available, including numbers, location, or educational settings, because individuals with Down syndrome are included only in the general special educational needs and disability school numbers. If we are to have specific legislation, it makes sense to have specific data with which to interpret the success of its implementation. Children with Down syndrome in the education system will have specific speech and language issues, significant fine and gross motor delay, cognitive delay, hearing loss, visual issues—we detailed that on Second Reading—social and emotional needs, and specific and unique learning profiles associated with Down syndrome. Some of those conditions will be shared with other syndromes and medical conditions, but many will be specific to Down syndrome. If we are not to get the overshadowing problem, we must be clear about what we need to know about this.
In New York I was able to set out the sort of cases and advances that we have made in this country by being able to utilise a range of tools that enable people with Down syndrome to make more decisions for themselves. As we have a better understanding, for example among social workers and community medical staff, we are increasingly able to deploy those tools to ensure that those who have a voice—a voice that would not necessarily traditionally be recognised in our system—are able to make more decisions for themselves. That was at the heart of what the UN 12th World Down Syndrome Day meant.
I do not wish to speak any longer than necessary and take up colleagues’ valuable time, so I will end with this quote from Heidi Carter, who I have come to know increasingly well. She is a valiant campaigner for Down syndrome rights, and she states:
“I have shown everyone that Down syndrome is not something to be scared of and that people with Down syndrome live happy, amazing, fulfilled and independent lives!”
Congratulations to her and her husband on their marriage. I wish them well. She said:
“We are not going to give up. I think that all human life is valuable and should be treated with respect however many chromosomes we have!”
I do not believe there is a single one of us in this House who would not agree with that sentiment.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this debate, and on the passage of his Act. I enjoyed his contribution this afternoon, advocating for individuals in the Down syndrome community. I assure him that I was at the parliamentary event on Wednesday, and there were people from Scotland down in the Lobby discussing some of those issues. It was a privilege to be there. It is also a privilege to be an elected representative, and one of the privileges that come with that is that we meet those we represent who speak truth to power. On Saturday, my constituent, Danielle Urie, came to see me at my Ibrox surgery. She asked me to participate in this debate, which is why I am here this afternoon. I asked Danielle to write to me about some of the things she wanted to say, and after the exchange I had with the right hon. Gentleman about diagnostic overshadowing, I am afraid that, sadly, there is an example of that coming up.
Danielle is currently going through the complaints procedure with the health service in Scotland to discuss some of this. I asked her, and her son Steven, to go through their experiences, and I will read what Danielle sent to me last night:
“My name is Danielle Urie. If my son Steven could speak, I’m sure this is what he would say. ‘My name is Steven I am 11 years old. From 2019 to 2021 I was diagnostically overshadowed by doctors which resulted to damage in my body that can never be reversed, while sitting in chronic pain and bleeding for two years. I am now left with a permanent stoma and my large bowel being completely removed. During this time I had been treated with no respect, and left with no dignity.’ If Steven was a typical child who could voice for himself I don’t think any of this would have happened. I want you to all know the catastrophic consequences that can happen with diagnostic overshadowing, because it’s real and it happens more than you all think. To have no control on what happens with your child’s healthcare is terrifying . I don’t want my child or any child in fact to be added to the statistics of people with Down’s syndrome dying as a result of being diagnostically overshadowed.”
I want to thank Danielle for having the bravery to write to a Member of Parliament to share that particular experience.
The right hon. Gentleman invited us to talk about what is happening in other devolved nations, and I have some constructive criticisms about what is happening in Scotland. I do not think that everything is wrong with what the Scottish Government are doing, but I have some comments to make. The Scottish Government’s position is that they take a wider view and are committed to introducing the learning disability, autism and neurodiversity Bill as part of their programme for government. There are opportunities there. In delivering the Bill, the Scottish Government want to improve opportunities, outcomes and support for people with Down’s syndrome.
There will be a consultation on the Bill later this year. I will certainly be assisting Danielle, and any others, as a part of that. It will provide an opportunity for people to view the policy options that could be included in the draft Bill, including whether it should establish a commissioner. As part of their scoping work, the Scottish Government ran events with a wide range of Scotland’s disabled people-led organisations and national charities. The Scottish Government are working towards a human rights-based approach to ensure the Bill is fully co-designed with people who have lived experiences. It is very important, when shaping legislation, that people with those lived experiences are involved from the outset.
I would like to see the words “Down’s syndrome” included in the title of the Bill. I think that would be welcomed by those who came down from Scotland to the event in Parliament on Tuesday. Why do I think that is important? People with Down’s syndrome are more likely to be born with a heart condition and more likely to get leukaemia. People in the Down’s syndrome community are more prone to infections and thyroid problems, and more susceptible to eye and hearing problems. We want to ensure that those with Down’s syndrome get extra health checks, for example, and have access to speech therapy. It is very important that people with Down’s syndrome have those opportunities. Those are some of the reasons why I want the Down’s syndrome community in Scotland have the words “Down’s syndrome” in the title of the Bill. I will be working with Danielle and others to ensure that that is the case.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing the debate and for all the work he did to ensure the Down Syndrome Act 2022 became law.
During our lifetime, there has been a significant change in attitude towards Down syndrome. Undoubtedly, there is still more that can be done to improve the quality of life and opportunities of people with Down syndrome, but as we mark the 18th anniversary of the first World Down Syndrome Day, we should not forget the progress that has been made in understanding the condition and supporting those with Down syndrome to be treated fairly so they are able to live full and productive lives.
I speak with personal experience. My father had an elder brother, Donald, who had Down syndrome. I was only told of his existence when I was 27 years old and pregnant with my second child. Donald died in 1946, aged about 25. He spent all his life in an institution, which was standard practice at the time. My father did not talk about his brother. He found it too painful. My mother explained to me that when my father was a small child, my grandmother had taken him with her every month to visit his brother in the institution and the experience had traumatised him.
When I spoke during the Down Syndrome Bill debate last year, I referenced the BBC series “Call the Midwife”, which documented attitudes towards Down syndrome and how they started changing in the 1950s and 1960s as people with Down syndrome were able to take an active part in their communities. Not only have attitudes changed, but life expectancy has increased dramatically in recent decades from 25 years in the 1900s to 60 years today. Medical science has advanced and people can live extremely healthy and long lives, and make a great contribution to our society.
I am incredibly grateful for this opportunity to celebrate the achievements and contributions of people with Down syndrome to their local communities and to our society as a whole.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing the debate. We are all encouraged by the situation. What comes to my mind is a young gentleman called James Martin, the 31-year-old who starred in the roaring success, “An Irish Goodbye”. He has gone from working in Starbucks to living his dream by winning a globally recognised award. Most importantly, he has never let his disability get in the way of goals and achievement. Does the hon. Lady agree that James is a true role model to all individuals out there who feel that society restrains them due to their disability, and reminds them that the world is their oyster—or in this case, their Oscar?
Jo Gideon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely correct.
In Stoke, the Stoke and Staffordshire Downs Syndrome Social Group was set up in 2016 by a family in my constituency after their son was born with Down syndrome and the couple walked away from hospital with just a factsheet about the disorder. Today, the group meets regularly in Birches Head and is making a difference to the lives of more than 50 families by organising regular trips and activities, as well as supporting families emotionally and connecting them with wider support groups.
I would also like to highlight the great WorkFit programme for its role in making workplaces more inclusive. WorkFit is an employment programme that matches places and supports individuals with Down syndrome into work, with more than 1,000 individuals successfully accessing the service to date. In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, I was delighted to hear that the programme supported Grace into her role at Dunelm distribution centre, where she works dealing with returns from customers. She works two days a week and really enjoys being part of a great team who are very supportive. She uses her computer skills to process returns from customers and is very proud of her job.
Last week’s Budget outlined ways in which we would like to see a greater proportion of working-age people in employment, with a specific emphasis on supporting disabled people into work. One thing I would like to see is an improvement in ensuring that public transport services are available for travelling to and from work, so that a lack of access is not a barrier to that aim. Indeed, while it is wonderful to hear stories like Grace’s, according to the Down’s Syndrome Association, people with Down syndrome often face barriers and prejudice, lack of opportunities, low expectations, stereotyping and other negative attitudes. A study by Mencap found that 62% of adults with learning disabilities in the UK want to work, but only 6% have a paid job.
Everyone should have the right to work. People who have Down syndrome want to work for the same reasons as everyone else: to earn their own money, learn new skills, meet new people, feel valued, contribute to society, and have the chance to be more independent. Work is important for so many reasons and is a key part of our personal ambitions. For employers and their workforce, being equipped with the knowledge and understanding of how to better support a colleague with the condition is at the heart of the matter. In fact, it is key to achieving an inclusive work environment.
The same goes for education. The majority of children with disabilities in developing countries are currently out of school, while many of those enrolled are not in learning. To ensure that all children have access to quality education, education policies and practices must be inclusive of all learners, encourage the full participation of all, and promote diversity as a resource rather than as an obstacle. I was listening to an interview with a teacher recently, who said that she had seen such a difference in her class after moving from retrospectively altering her lesson plans for children in the class with Down syndrome, to thinking about how she can make a plan that includes the needs of all her pupils from the beginning. When we think about successful inclusion, it is about how are we supporting teachers to include and value everyone from the start, as opposed to adapting and modifying in retrospect.
The theme of this year’s World Down Syndrome Day is “With Us Not For Us”. I think that reflects my point well: a move from the outdated charity model of disability to working with others to treat them fairly so that they have the same opportunities as everyone else.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will forgive me, but my constituent Ed Daly is in the Public Gallery with his mum, Jane. They spoke at the event on Tuesday in Parliament and they are fantastic advocates for this cause. Everything my hon. Friend says absolutely sums up what they have been saying to me. Will she, as I do, pay tribute to them?
Jo Gideon
I absolutely do pay tribute to them. I cannot see them in the Public Gallery, but it is wonderful that they are here to listen to the debate and to hear all the support there is for them in the House.
Support in decision making is really good. We all need help from people who know us and want the best for us. But people should have the right to make the final decision, the right to dignity and individuality, and the right to be in control of their lives.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing this important debate on a subject close to my heart. It is important in such debates to talk about real people. There is a real person in Ashfield called Jossie May. She is seven years old and has Down syndrome. Jossie’s family want the world to see the real Jossie. Is Jossie different? Yes, she is. She is beautiful, funny, clever, friendly, happy, and all the things that I want to be but unfortunately am not. She is a role model to us all, so I guess she is different. Jossie’s family know that she will face certain barriers when she gets older, but with the right support in place, Jossie can achieve many great things and make a fantastic contribution to our society. Why should she not be allowed to do that? She should be.
Gone are the days when we would hide away children with Down syndrome, and thank goodness for that. Why should we hide them away? They have as much right to enjoy life as we do, but it is up to us as a civilised society to ensure that we remove as many obstacles as we can. With the right education and support, young Jossie could go on to lead a happy, contented and independent life where she can work and look after herself. Is that not what we all want?
Jossie’s family are aware that we have made great strides in education over the past 30 years, but we still have a long way to go with Down syndrome. In the right settings and with the right support, whether in mainstream or special schools, surely we can do a little more to help members of our Down syndrome community. We want a world where we do not have to fight so hard for people such as Jossie. There also needs to be acknowledgment that, like any other human being, those with Down syndrome have different levels of ability. We are all different, and have different abilities. Some will be capable of living independently with some support; some will never be able to do that. We need to look at each person as an individual and ensure that they are supported by the correct decision making.
Great improvements have been made in access to education, but when a person with Down syndrome leaves full-time education, their employment opportunities are few and far between. We have a great project in Ashfield called the Rumbles cafe, where young people with learning disabilities are trained to work in a café. It is a life-changing experience for many young people, and provides a valuable service to our community, but the café faces an uncertain future, as the local council is bickering over the terms of the lease. It is truly a shocking situation.
Attitudes need to change. It should be not all about money but about outcomes. There also needs to be much more support post education. So many parents end up with a young adult who has little opportunity to integrate with their local community on a day-to-day basis. It is truly shocking. Every person deserves to be immersed in a community where they can get involved.
We need more research into health issues. There is a huge pocket of science within the Down syndrome community, such as on childhood leukaemia and Alzheimer’s, to name just two issues. Imagine what answers could be sitting there undiscovered in the Down syndrome community. It is an interesting fact that the cure rate for acute myeloid leukaemia in children with Down syndrome is higher than that of the general population. We should be looking into that more.
Lastly—this should be the simplest of all—I would like better signposting in maternity care. The Positive About Down Syndrome support service has made great strides to improve that, but there is still more to be done. I know Jossie. According to her family, she is every kind of wonderful and deserves a wealth of opportunities. Let us make a world where that can happen.
I was at the event in this place just a few days ago. I saw room full of wonderful young people, full of talent and ambition, with loving and caring families. If we cannot make the world better for those young people, we should not be here in this place. I am confident that the Minister will make sure that we do that.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in this afternoon’s debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing it, for his groundbreaking work in this area and for his Bill, which was passed into law last year.
As we have heard, the theme of this year’s World Down Syndrome Day is “With Us Not For Us”—apt recognition of the fact that people with disabilities have the right to be treated fairly and to have the same opportunities as everybody else, working with others to improve their lives. Nowhere is that exemplified more brilliantly than through the work of the world-famous, world record breaking Music Man project—a Southend-based education and performance service for people with physical and cognitive learning difficulties such as Down syndrome.
The Music Man project reverses perceptions around disability, including Down syndrome, on a scale rarely seen before. The project has been so successful that there are now regional centres across the United Kingdom and even around the world. None of that would have been possible without the incredible leadership and drive of the Government’s disability and access ambassador for arts and culture, Southend’s very own hero David Stanley BEM. He really does deserve a knighthood. David’s mission in life has been to support people with learning difficulties to achieve what would once have been unthinkable. He is the living embodiment of, “With Us Not For Us”.
David Stanley’s students recently performed alongside the Massed Bands of His Majesty’s Royal Marines in the Mountbatten festival of music at the Royal Albert Hall. A total of 15,000 people gave them a standing ovation over three performances. One such supporter was none other than His Majesty the King, who rose to his feet to applaud these incredible musicians. It was a remarkable moment and testament to the power of music to shine a light on a once forgotten society.
Quite rightly, in February this year, David Stanley received a special recognition award from the National Lottery for his work with the Music Man project. Everyone in Southend is incredibly proud of his work and that of these incredible musicians with Down syndrome who are achieving so much. Some will know that one of their astonishing achievements was to come out with a Christmas single, “Music is Magic”, which made the top 10—it may have been at No. 10, but never mind. It was an amazing record, featured on BBC1’s “Breakfast”, Sky News, ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” and across national radio and press. It was officially launched with a performance at the Painted Hall in Greenwich, and the Prime Minister was presented with his own copy by the Leader of the House. I took my team to Waterloo station where the musicians were performing. It was an incredible and joyous occasion to help them and to sing with them there.
Not content with just storming the charts here in the UK, the Music Man ambassadors—bandassadors—also stormed America on their recent concert tour to San Diego, where they performed onboard the iconic aircraft carrier the USS Midway. Their groundbreaking collaboration with the Royal Marines connects elite military musicians with people with learning disabilities, through the universal language of music. Last year, they also received four “yes” votes from the celebrity judges of “Britain’s Got Talent”. Simon Cowell described them as
“like drinking a glass of happiness”.
Watch this space.
I could go on about the project’s incredible musical success. As I have said, it is the perfect example of “With Us Not For Us”. The students are treated as fellow musicians and enjoy the same incredible opportunities to express themselves and share their talents. As a result, musicians with Down syndrome are now role models for their community and global ambassadors for the UK’s accessible arts and culture. David Stanley himself says,
“Sometimes it feels as if I’m clinging on for the ride while they go on and make history.”
In preparing for this debate, I contacted the ex- headmistress of one of our special schools in Southend, who is now the CEO of the SEN Trust. There is more we can do to support people living with Down syndrome. Jackie Mullan, a brilliant champion of education for people with disabilities, has shared with me her concerns about the lack of post-19 college options for people with Down syndrome in Southend. There should be more options for people leaving college, whether that be entering the world of employment or enjoying better daycare opportunities. Sadly, at the moment, those are few and far between in Southend and are difficult to access due to the pressures on social worker workloads. She has even heard reports of families who have waited over six weeks just for a phone call to be returned about the options available. There should be a review of the guidance issued, looking at what is and is not available. That must be improved. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government are looking into that.
There is so much to celebrate about the Down syndrome community and the champions we have in Southend, including Jackie Mullan and David Stanley. They are heroes, but only because of the incredible passion, energy, excitement and enthusiasm of the students they look after.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I am pleased to see colleagues here who have come with their own experiences. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing the debate and I thank him for his work with his Bill.
We discuss lots of issues in this Chamber, often prompted, lobbied for or orchestrated by individuals who have the loudest voices, including those who organise the petitions we debate in Westminster Hall, which have to have 100,000 signatures. Those people know how to work the system, so this afternoon it is good to take part in a debate prompted by those whose voices have been heard less frequently over the years. Those voices sometimes belong to less able-bodied people or, as in this case, those who have Down syndrome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) spoke movingly about her own experiences; it was emotional for her to relate those experiences to us. She spoke about her father and his experience of having a brother who was left in care. There was a time when people with Down syndrome or other disabilities were always put into care. That was a terrible time and I am very pleased that we have now moved beyond that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) mentioned the caring role of parents who are able—or in some cases not able—to look after people who are suffering from these terrible conditions. We should pay tribute to them, especially those in the Public Gallery today. I have to admit that I could not undertake that role. I do not, unfortunately, have children, but I would find it very difficult to look after the day-to-day needs of anyone with any kind of disability. I will be honest and say that I could not do that. I pay tribute to my sister, who is undertaking a caring role at the minute. As I have explained to her, that is not something that I could do. Some people, like me, simply cannot do that.
Several years ago, I went to visit Saira and Anthony Hettiarachchi, who run the Dillon care home in West Hendon. Both Saira and Anthony are friends of mine. Saira was a Conservative councillor and worked in the sector for many years, meaning she was able to take some of those skills to her work at the council, including in children’s services. During my visit, she introduced me to many of the people she looked after, perhaps because their parents were unable to do so or because Saira’s care home was able to provide better care for them. She introduced me to a boy with Down syndrome called Michael, who did not have great verbal or other communication skills but could dance; actually, he danced rather well. He was a bit more like a cat than I am. He could dance and he was able to express himself. I was quite amazed at the time that someone who I thought would not be able to undertake that physical exertion was able to do that.
Later on, I saw Michael again, when I was at the St Joseph’s Pastoral Centre in Hendon. I saw not only Michael but other children with Down syndrome. They all seemed to communicate with each other, as they were winning awards, in their own special way. It was interesting to see because they were a group within the group and they were acting just like other children. There was no difference between them. It struck me that they were like anyone else, and had the same hopes and aspirations.
I have visited the Larches community trust in Edgware on several occasions, as I mentioned in my maiden speech, which was established by Linda Edwards. On one visit to the centre, I was asked, as many of us often are, to say a few words without any notice. I thought, “I’m going to take a risk, on this occasion. I’m going to say what I think.” I know the Whips complain that I often not only say what I think but vote the way I think is appropriate, but on that occasion I thought I would take the chance, and it was worth it.
I spoke about people with Down syndrome and I said how they were coming out of the darkness and into the mainstream. An example I raised was about a person called Liam Barstow, who many people will know better as Alex Warner, the character in the soap opera, “Coronation Street”. Liam was born with Down syndrome and was discovered by the producers of “Coronation Street” when they ran a workshop for actors with disabilities, called Breaking Through. They were so impressed with his abilities, they decided to create a role for him. One producer said, “It’s not some politically correct thing. We found there a really great actor with a wonderful sense of timing.”
I do not really watch soap operas, but on the occasions that I have seen “Coronation Street” I have been quite amused by some of lines that Liam has. We all know Roy Cropper is a character in “Coronation Street” who runs the local café. I would not call him a ladies man, but there was an occasion when he had two female acquaintances who were friends. Liam delivered a wonderful line, asking Roy if he was a “playa”, which was a hilarious moment.
There have been other examples of people with Down syndrome in popular culture. Other people have spoken about their experiences today, which is good, and this is a very serious issue, but we need to highlight other ways in which people with Down syndrome have made great contributions. I particularly like the film, “The Peanut Butter Falcon”. It is about a boy with Down syndrome who escapes from an assisted living facility and befriends a wayward fisherman on the run. The reason he escapes is that he wants to become a professional wrestler, which brings across to us that people with Down syndrome have hopes and aspirations, just like anyone else.
Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have to raise the film “An Irish Goodbye”, which I have watched twice. For those who have not seen it, it is set in a working farm in rural Northern Ireland and follows the reunion of estranged brothers Turlough, played by Seamus O’Hara, and Lorcan, played by James Martin, after the untimely death of their mother, hence the title of the film. Lorcan wants to continue working the land he grew up with, but Turlough decides he should go and live with their aunt on the other side of Ireland. To prevent that, Lorcan says he has a bucket list his mother wanted to complete and will only leave the farm if he and Turlough have completed every single wish on their mother’s list—all 100 of them. I suggest people watch the film because it is a wonderful example of an individual who has broken free from stereotypes to become a commanding actor.
I highlight both productions because for many years people with disabilities, including those with Downs syndrome, have been written off and consigned to a lifetime on benefits. That is repugnant and I believe that both Liam and Jack have established themselves as actors.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, Jack used to be a barista, which he claims he would be quite happy to go back to, but I hope he continues to act. He has recently been filmed playing a harmonica in a bar, which shows he has a range of talents and interests. Maybe there should be a genre of films with leading characters with Down syndrome, but before I am criticised for singling people out, I would say viewers who watch these productions will experience empathy with these characters, get used to seeing their point of view and come away with an acceptance that they face additional hardships, but still have the same hopes and desires as everyone else. People with Down syndrome are not the others in society that they once were.
I have often thought we could include more people in what we do in this place, and the debate today is a good example of that. We should ensure that people who suffer from Down syndrome are given the opportunities they deserve, and that they come into the mainstream and perform their best role in life.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
May I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)? Further into my speech I may disagree with him slightly—it will be a gentle disagreement—but I totally acknowledge his knowledge and his passion for people with Down’s syndrome. Unfortunately I was not able to make the reception on Wednesday, but I did manage to get my picture taken with the right hon. Member and tweet it out on World Down Syndrome Day; I think many of our constituents might have been quite surprised to see that.
It is always a pleasure to speak in these Thursday afternoon debates, because they are generally consensual and we really learn a lot. As the SNP spokesperson on disabilities I was not entirely sure whether I would be the right person to sum up in this debate, but I think I probably am, because of the passion that the people around me are exhibiting this afternoon. I will probably throw away my prepared speech now and just crib bits and pieces.
It is always a pleasure to follow Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Everyone can be assured that he will assist his constituents to push the Scottish Government with their new Bill, because he is passionate about helping his constituents. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) spoke about her personal experience and about changing attitudes to Down’s syndrome and life expectancy. As one of the older people speaking today, I can vouch for that: when I was younger it was very difficult to see anyone with Down’s syndrome as we went about our daily living, but now things are very different right across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) spoke about real people; there cannot be many of us who have not met a real person with Down’s syndrome. The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) talked about the Music Man project and about the theme for this year’s Down Syndrome Day, “With Us Not For Us”—a motto and an expectation that we should all think about when we are dealing with people with disabilities. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) paid tribute to those who care. I am pretty sure that he, too, cares about lots of things, but I understand his reluctance to put himself out there as a carer.
The right hon. Member for North Somerset wanted to know more about what is going on in other areas. Before I get on to that issue, I might just get over the point on which we might differ slightly. Like other Members, I get briefings from lots of organisations for many debates in this House. Genetic Alliance has written to me with its concerns about the guidance on the right hon. Member’s Act. It is worth just mentioning those concerns, which touch on the point that when Parliament passes a Bill there are often consequences that we do not see and a debate always opens up about what has not been included or what people think might have been included.
Given that people with Down’s syndrome form friendships with people with other genetic conditions and meet them regularly, as they are accessing similar services, Genetic Alliance has concerns that perhaps more thought should be given to guidance for those with other conditions. However, I absolutely take on board what the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West have said.
Dr Fox
I just want to clarify that the point of the Down Syndrome Act is not to exclude other conditions or other genetic conditions. It was specifically discussed on Second Reading and in Committee that where there is overlap, of course it makes sense to have common provision. However, Down syndrome is different: there is a bigger, defined population who have not just learning difficulty issues, but a whole range of very specific medical conditions that require specific remedies. As has regularly been pointed out, the life expectancy for someone with Down syndrome was 13 years when I was born, whereas it is now in the 60s. That is why it is important that we establish a beachhead for such conditions. Actually, I do not think we are in any disagreement whatever.
Marion Fellows
I am very relieved to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, but I felt obliged to speak about the issue, because there are concerns. I would like the Minister to take on board those concerns from Genetic Alliance, because no one ever wants to pass a Bill that is seen as excluding or not actually helping other people—that is the main point of the briefing that I received today. As I say, I am very relieved not to be in dispute with the right hon. Member.
I want to talk a wee bit about the Scottish Government’s position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, they are taking a wider view of Down’s syndrome in the Bill that they want to bring forward. One of the main differences in how the Scottish Government propose legislation is the way they look at the issues and consult very widely—there are many groups that they regularly consult on disabilities. They always use lived experience, which I think is the most important thing for people to take forward.
The Scottish Government have also looked at a human rights-based approach. That ties in very well with this year’s World Down Syndrome Day theme, “With Us Not For Us”, because we need to look at human rights in their entirety, especially for people with Down’s syndrome and for people with conditions that are different but that have similar difficulties. That is why the Scottish Government have committed to incorporating in Scots law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—always within their legislative competence, hopefully. I think this Government should also think about including that in Bills. I think we are going to have difficulties with human rights discussions, shall I say, in this Parliament going forward; I hope we do not, but I think we all have to realise that everyone has human rights and they have to be adhered to. We should not, in any size, shape or form, be looking to remove any of them from any group of people at all.
As has been said today, it is really important to remove as many barriers as we can for everyone, and especially for those who have Down’s syndrome. It is really important that we look at what people can do, not at what they are not able to do—or not able to do yet. It is refreshing, and important, that people with Down’s syndrome are involved in mainstream education. When I was a further education lecturer, I was involved with a college with many courses for young people who had left full-time education to continue learning. On that subject, there is a wonderful café in my constituency called Windmills. The preparations for it were first made in 2006 at a local school, Firpark high school. It has done great work over the years, and continues to do great work, in training young people with learning disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, and teaching them how to gain qualifications so that they can work in other areas, but especially in the café.
Let me say in conclusion—because I am aware that I may be overrunning—that I find taking part in debates such as this interesting, educational and informative. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset on all that he does, and I am sure many people have benefited, and will benefit, from his Act.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I echo other Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this important debate. We all know what a passionate and—most importantly—effective campaigner he has been in supporting people with Down syndrome and their families. His Down Syndrome Act, which Opposition Members were proud to support, represents an important opportunity for us to make progress on delivering the support that people with Down syndrome deserve, so that they can lead as full and equal a life as everyone else.
Let me say as an aside that I think what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do has important implications for wider public sector reform. There are many issues and problems that people have talked about for years; the question is, how do we make change? The right hon. Gentleman’s mechanism in this instance is to use a specific Act providing for named individuals who are held accountable, and for guidance that actually secures change. However, there are other methods of securing changes in public services—for instance, through legal rights—and I am a strong champion of direct payments and personal budgets, which give people and their families the power to change those services. We need to focus on making a difference and putting the users of services and their families at the heart of the system, making them equal partners in care. We will never get healthcare, education and work support right unless we do it in partnership with people.
I am a long-standing champion of the vision pioneered by the group Social Care Future, which consists of people who use services and their families: that we all want to live in the place we call home with the people and things we love, in communities where we look out for one another and where we can contribute, doing the things that matter the most to us—not what somebody else tells us we want to do or should do, but what we ourselves want to do. That is the vision that Opposition Members are championing. In the 21st century, and in what, despite all our problems, is still one of the richest countries in the world, it should not be seen as extraordinary, but the truth is, I am afraid, that for too many of the 47,000 people in the UK living with Down syndrome, it remains far from reality.
Members have rightly spoken of the progress that has been made, but I think it is also important to use this debate to demonstrate how much further there is to go. The first issue I want to raise is that of health and health inequalities, to which many Members have referred. We know that people with Down syndrome are more likely to experience problems with their hearts, bowels, hearing and vision, and have an increased risk of infections. I think it disgraceful that so often the outcomes are so poor for people with Down syndrome because of what is known as diagnostic overshadowing, when symptoms are ignored and put down to Down syndrome rather than being diagnosed properly and addressed.
There are two issues on which I think we should focus. The first is the need to ensure that children with Down syndrome have the regular check-ups they need with paediatricians and GPs. We know that too many families find those services too hard to access, and the current number of vacancies in the NHS—133,000—as well as all the other problems that people are experiencing when trying to see GPs and other doctors are having an impact on that. When she responds to the debate, will the Minister tell us when we will finally see the Government’s workforce plan for the NHS? May I also cheekily ask her once again whether she will adopt Labour’s plan to bring about the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in its history, which we would pay for by scrapping the non-dom tax status? Members will understand that I want to put forward practical solutions today and to be realistic about the challenges, and that is what I intend to do.
Dr Fox
Does the hon. Lady accept that it is a question of not just the size of the workforce but their understanding of the problems? If in health, as in education and social care, the professionals are not aware of the difficulties faced by the population with Down syndrome, no number of extra professionals or services will make a real difference.
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman must have read the next line in my speech. Of course, it is not only an issue of staff shortages and vacancies. I think that the real issue, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, is training. If people are not trained to understand an issue and to understand its manifestations, they will not be able to put it right. In some other areas, I have seen medical schools and universities pioneering new forms of training, in which those who have a condition and their families become part of the training module to explain what the implications are. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action the Government are taking in this regard, and whether the guidance that will be issued will involve changes within medical schools or for nurses and other healthcare professionals.
The second area in which progress is needed is social care. It is, I believe, the biggest area in which the right support for people with Down syndrome is too often lacking. Whatever Conservative Members may say, I think it is important to understand the context in which the Down Syndrome Act will be working, and to take into account the difficult situation relating to social care. Just last week, research from the learning disability charity HfT revealed that nearly half the social care providers in England have been forced to close part of their organisations or hand back contracts to councils as a result of cost pressures in the last year. More than half a million people are awaiting a social care assessment, a review, or the start of a service or direct payment, and a survey conducted by the Down’s Syndrome Association found that 43% of family carers said their adult child was in need of an assessment, with some waiting as long as two years for that basic service.
What all this means, of course, is that families tend to be left to pick up the slack, often having to leave their own jobs or reduce their hours because they cannot obtain the help that they need to look after their loved ones. The fact that there are 165,000 vacancies in the social care workforce is having an impact on the support that is available to families with Down syndrome. We need to address both the issue of the care workforce and wider reforms.
Last week, the Health Service Journal reported that there are due to be cuts in the money announced for social care reform in the 2021 White Paper. A sum of £500 million was set aside to improve the training and career progression of the care workforce, but the Health Service Journal said that that is going to be cut by half. It also said that the £300 million to better integrate housing, health and care is set to be cut, with cuts to the budgets for unpaid carers and the use of technology.
This is really important, because unless we join up services and support, people with Down syndrome will not be able to live the lives they choose. The issue of housing is critical. Just 28% of people with learning disabilities live in supported housing, yet we know that 70% of people with a learning disability want to change their current housing arrangements to give them greater independence. Will the Minister confirm whether those reports are true? Are the Government going to cut £250 million for improving the training of the social care workforce and £300 million from the budget to better integrate health, care and housing? [Interruption.] It is not a disrespectful question; it is a question that has a direct impact on the lives—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I said it was disappointing.
Liz Kendall
It is not disappointing; it is my job to hold the Government to account. I would like the Minister to answer that question.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) mentioned help to work, which I am passionate about. Work gives purpose, independence and dignity, but only 5.5% of adults with a learning disability in England were in paid employment as of 2020, yet 65% of people with learning disabilities say they want to go out and work. The hon. Member asked about what was happening in her constituency. I recently visited the Leicester Royal Infirmary, which is doing pioneering work with Ellesmere College, a college for students with special educational needs, to give them the skills and experience they need to get to work, with pioneering apprenticeships. I visited a young woman who was working in the hospital café. I asked her what she thought, and she said that her ambition now was to set up her own café and employ others. I think that shows that if people are given the chance and the support, real progress can be made.
The Down Syndrome Act presents a real opportunity for change. It creates a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to relevant authorities on how to meet the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. That will cover many of the issues I have outlined, and I hope the Minister will update us on when it will start to make an impact on the ground. I understand that the call for evidence on the Act closed in November. When will we see the Government’s response? We need to act quickly to make real progress to transform the lives of people with Down syndrome and ensure they can live the life they choose.
I would argue that wider action is needed to support the NHS and social care so that we have the investment and reform we need to improve lives, but I hope the Minister will address in detail my questions about the reports. I understand that the Government will produce an update on social care, possibly next week. Will the Minister answer my question and say whether the funds the Government promised will be available?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing the debate and for all his hard work over the years campaigning and supporting people with Down syndrome. I, too, attended the reception on the Terrace earlier this week. I met lots of people from around the country, some with Down syndrome, but with campaigners, supporters, friends and family. In particular, I pay tribute to the National Down Syndrome Policy Group and its founders, Ken and Rachael Ross, who are in the Public Gallery.
I had the pleasure of meeting the advisory team this morning in No. 10, where we held a roundtable with young people with Down syndrome. They certainly put my feet to the fire with their questions and the progress they want to see. They have joined us this afternoon, too. Florence, Harshi, Ed, Max, Fionn, Tommy, Charlotte, James, Heidi and Rula asked extremely difficult questions, and I have promised to update them on progress. That just shows the strength of feeling and the range of support from people around the country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
As we celebrate World Down Syndrome Day and the achievement of those who suffer with Down syndrome, will the Minister join me in congratulating my constituent Jade Kingdom, who is now a Guinness world record holder as the first person with Down syndrome to complete a sprint triathlon. She overcame her health conditions to achieve this and raised £30,000 for the North Devon Hospice.
Maria Caulfield
That is a fantastic achievement, and I congratulate Jade on her amazing ability. I wish I could do something similar.
Tuesday marked the 12th World Down Syndrome Day. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset was not able to join us on the day because he was at the UN in New York to showcase the work done in this Parliament. Many countries are now looking to us as they try to do something similar. He has not only changed the lives of people with Down syndrome in this country; he is making a difference globally, too.
As part of the World Down Syndrome Day celebrations, I am wearing my different socks to showcase the three strands of chromosome 21, which apparently look like socks and are the cause of Down syndrome. The socks highlight Down syndrome and the amazing contribution that the incredible people with Down syndrome make to our communities and society.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) spoke about his constituent Danielle, her son Steven and the very real issues of diagnostic overshadowing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) spoke about her uncle Donald and how difficult it was for her family. She also spoke about what life was like in the past for people with Down syndrome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) spoke about Jossie, who I am sure has a wonderful future ahead of her. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about David Stanley and the Music Man team, who cheer us up with their wonderful performances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) spoke about the dancing ability of his constituent Michael. He also spoke about Liam. I am a “Coronation Street” fan, and Liam is not currently at Roy’s Rolls, but I look forward to his next episodes because he has a good sense of humour.
It is important to celebrate people with Down syndrome and to recognise the barriers they face. It was wonderful to see the actor James Martin win an Oscar for his brilliant performance, but we must not forget why we are here today.
The Down Syndrome Act became law in April 2022, and I will now update the House on its progress. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and the Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), ensured the passage of the Act. We all have a responsibility to make sure it is not the end of the story by implementing the Act and getting the guidance out.
At Downing Street this morning, the young people asked when we will see those changes. We will deliver guidance for professionals working in health, social care, education and housing, to try to bring together support for people with Down syndrome. The guidance will set out tangible, practical steps that organisations should take to meet the needs of people with Down syndrome. It will raise awareness of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome, and it will bring them together with the relevant authorities to make support more easily accessible.
We launched our national call for evidence in July 2022, in the spirit of “With Us Not For Us,” and we heard from hundreds of people across the country. We had more than 1,000 responses on the needs and asks of the various communities. I thank everyone who responded or participated in the focus groups. It is thanks to them that we received so much evidence, which officials are now going through to analyse the data. We will shortly provide a summary of the key findings.
It is essential that people’s lived experience informs the development of the guidance, and that people with Down syndrome are involved at every stage. We will shortly set up a working group to oversee the development of the guidance. Once drafted, the guidance will be subject to further public consultation to make sure we have it absolutely right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset asked some practical questions about the guidance, and we recognise that the issues and the services supporting people with Down syndrome sometimes overlap with the issues and the services supporting other people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties, which we need to consider. But I am absolutely clear that this guidance is about people with Down syndrome, because we want to help as many people as possible, to make it feasible for relevant authorities to implement this guidance in practice and to ensure that there will be oversight of it in Parliament.
We are committed to considering the inclusion of employment and other public services through the call for evidence. We heard that best practice in supporting employment and benefits services is also going to be included in the guidance. We know that employment can have a significant benefit in terms of living independently and participating fully. That is why it is so important that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), has sat through this afternoon’s debate. He was also at the reception earlier in the week, along with the Education Secretary. This is a cross-Government approach, and we cannot act just with one Department on its own. That shows that the full strength of the Government is behind these changes. We will also be looking at transport and leisure facilities, and removing some of the barriers to enable people with Down syndrome to be able to fully participate in the activities that they want to do. We will be working with other Departments to consider how to best incorporate those areas into the guidance.
To ensure that the guidance is implemented in practice, every integrated care board will be required to have a named lead for Down syndrome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset said, we want there to be a clear person accountable. The named lead will be responsible for ensuring that the Down Syndrome Act is implemented in practice. NHS England is currently developing its statutory guidance for ICBs, including for the Down syndrome lead role. Having a named lead for Down syndrome will help to ensure that the specific needs of people with Down syndrome are considered when services are designed and commissioned. One speaker this afternoon said that that would open the floodgates for change, but we absolutely need change to happen, so I do not necessarily have a problem with that. My right hon. Friend also touched on the school census. I wish to reassure him that although we have missed the deadline for 2023-24, we are looking at 2024-25 for this. We will be discussing that with the Education Secretary, because we recognise the importance of the school census and gathering that information.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. It has been a consensual debate and it shows Parliament at its best when we work together to deal with these challenges. I pay tribute to the families, carers, organisations and professionals who work tirelessly on behalf of people with Down syndrome, but I pay a particular tribute to those with Down syndrome themselves. It is indeed “With Us Not For Us”—I absolutely get that message. That is why we are here today. I also want to pay tribute to the officials at the Department of Health and Social Care—David Nuttall and his team—who have got that message loudly too and are working with the community to make sure that the Act and the guidance address their needs. Next year, I am sure that we will update the House further on the progress that has been made.
Dr Fox
With the leave of the House, may I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this debate? As the Minister just said, this is the House at its best, which almost certainly means, sadly, the media coverage at its least. As they say, “If you want a secret kept, say it in Parliament, outside Prime Minister’s questions.”
A couple of points are worth reiterating. There are those concerned about people with similar conditions to Down syndrome being left aside, but I do not believe that to be true, because of the measures that were considered and the commitments given in Committee by the Government. Although, again, it is worth pointing out that people with Down syndrome share a number of characteristics with other groups, they are, none the less, a discrete population. I wish the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) well in his attempts to get Down syndrome included in the Scottish Government legislation, because there is a problem of genuinely unintended consequences. Leaving it out could result in legislative overshadowing and we may unintentionally leave the Down syndrome groups isolated in their legal rights.
One thing that has come out loud and clear from this debate is the need for professional education, whether in health, education or social care. I worry about not only diagnostic overshadowing but social overshadowing, whereby the need for people to live, earn and be independent is hidden by a stigma, which is still all too prevalent and needs to be removed. We in the UK have taken a great lead on this issue, as was reflected at the United Nations on Tuesday. We should relish this challenge as a country. We talk about global Britain in a whole range of areas, including diplomacy and security, but should not one of the great challenges for global Britain be our setting an example on social care that the rest of the world wants to follow? That would be something to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Down Syndrome Day.
Energy Trilemma
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling the energy trilemma.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to the many colleagues from across the parties who have supported today’s important debate on tackling the energy trilemma. It is perhaps the most critical issue facing us today. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted the extraordinary pressure on the energy systems of countries right across the world, and also demonstrated the crucial importance of energy sovereignty. For us in the UK, although the risk to security of supply remains low, the Russian invasion has demonstrated as never before the importance of balance in tackling the energy trilemma.
We can think of the energy trilemma as being a bit like a three-legged stool. Its three equally important legs are first, keeping the lights on; secondly, keeping the cost of energy bills down; and thirdly, decarbonising right across the world. If we are to sit comfortably on that stool, all three legs must be in balance, and be given equal consideration. Achieving that balance is by no means easy. As chairman of the 1922 Back-Bench committee on business, energy and industrial strategy, I have, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who is vice-chairman of the committee and is here, the noble Lord Lilley, the vice-chairman of the committee from the other place, and other colleagues from across our two Houses, been looking in detail at the practical steps that need to be taken to meet this enormous challenge.
The Government are, I know, already working hard to tackle the energy trilemma, but while they already have a great deal in hand, a shove here and a push there could make a huge positive difference in very short order to consumers, businesses and our decarbonisation efforts. In our recent report, “Energy Market Reform: Tackling the energy trilemma,” our committee made 34 recommendations. They include unblocking renewables; cutting energy demand; improving the flexibility of energy pricing; looking at the future of the energy price guarantee; and creating a new energy Department in Whitehall. I was very pleased to see that the Prime Minister came to the same conclusion on that last point, and created the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I sincerely hope that we will be as successful with our other 33 recommendations. I am keen to use this debate to make the case for them to Ministers.
There is no doubt that the UK has been a world leader in deploying renewable energy projects, coming from almost a standing start in 2010. By 2020, solar and wind produced nearly 30% of the UK’s electricity—a tenfold increase on 2010. The UK is proud to have almost half the world’s offshore-deployed wind, all created under successive Conservative Governments—a great record of commitment that we can point to. However, renewable energy projects face increasing bottlenecks, including delays in the planning system, delays to grid connections, shortages in supply chains and a creaking electricity market design. In addition, there is an increasing risk of skills shortages as the deployment of offshore wind ramps up this decade. To tackle these problems, the Government should consider a number of measures that should already be in hand.
First, we should speed up the planning system by straight away implementing the new national policy statement for renewables, which has been good to go since 2011, and which would provide much greater investability. In particular, the concern over developers reserving grid connections and allowing years to pass without using them means that vital housing and infrastructure projects cannot go ahead because they cannot get a grid connection.
Secondly, the Government should consider officially committing to the development of an offshore ring main for offshore wind. Some projects are already sharing infrastructure, but clear guidance from Government would speed that up and make it much more acceptable to communities who do not want the huge onshore infrastructure currently being pushed onto their beaches and sensitive onshore conservation areas.
Thirdly, the Government could immediately issue direction on where new power lines should be located. Overhead lines are much cheaper, but less acceptable to communities. Underground lines, on the other hand, are potentially six times more expensive. There is a lack of clarity on policy in this critical area, particularly because independent analysis has concluded that, to meet our 2030 targets for electrifying our energy system, the National Grid will need to build seven times as much infrastructure over just the next seven years as we have achieved in total over the last 32 years—a huge mountain to climb.
Fourthly, although there has been progress on floating offshore wind projects, the Government should take seriously the evidence that floating offshore wind on Britain’s west coast in particular could strengthen our energy security, improving electricity resources in Northern Ireland as well as providing a hedge against low wind speed around other parts of the British Isles.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The right hon. Lady is making excellent points. She served as Energy Minister, I think, and I am reminded that the best part of 20 years ago one of her predecessors as Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, was promoting the case for an interconnector to go down the west coast of the United Kingdom and through the Irish sea. That did not happen, essentially because of concerns in Ofgem about the danger of stranded assets. I think her idea is a good one, but does she agree that in order to achieve it there will have to be a fundamental rethink about the way we regulate the industry?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; of course regulation, safety and considering the impact of potential stranded assets are vital. I do not think there should be any fundamental objections to expanding the use of interconnectors, but I am talking specifically here about floating offshore wind, which has huge potential but is not yet being deployed in the UK.
Fifthly, the Government should stop paying offshore wind farms in Scotland to switch off when it is too windy, which is already costing bill payers billions a year. Instead, we should look at piloting local electricity pricing, encouraging producers to work with business and consumers to use more electricity when it is plentiful and to reduce usage or use stored energy when the wind stops. That could be valuable for everyone, from Scottish citizens accessing cheap electricity when the wind is blowing to Cornish residents doing likewise when the sun is shining. Local electricity pricing offers transformational change that would make much better sense of the successful deployment of so many renewables.
One key recommendation made by the 1922 BEIS committee is on how to make these projects more acceptable to local communities. Local referendums and local compensation caused a bit of a stir when we announced them, but the idea has a lot of merit. In short, the report recommends that any proposed onshore wind, solar or shale gas extraction project should be subject to a local referendum on the basis of a simple majority. Where 50% or more of those who vote are in favour, the project can then go to normal planning considerations, but without the prospect of being overturned for lack of local support.
In return for the community accepting that limit on individual objections, our report proposes that local residents should receive free or subsidised energy bills for the entire lifetime of the project. That would have the effect of not only encouraging local communities, but forcing developers to think twice before locating renewables too close to sensitive communities because of the impact on the financial viability of their project. At the same time, bearing in mind the need for an urgent increase in the amount of electricity infrastructure, the committee recommends that the National Grid should be encouraged to build new pylons alongside transport corridors, and that renewables developers should be encouraged to locate alongside them, resulting in cheaper grid connections.
The second area of investigation in our report was how to cut energy demand. Every unit of energy that is not used is one that does not have to be generated. That reduces carbon emissions, cuts the cost of energy to consumers and to businesses, and improves our energy security—a genuine triple win. Ever since the committee’s first report in April 2022, we have been recommending a wide range of energy-saving actions, and I will highlight just a few of them.
First, boiler installers should focus not only on safety, as they do at present, but on efficiency. Every boiler installation should provide only sufficient power to heat that particular home or business, and the temperature gauge should be set at the most efficient level.
Secondly, the completion of the smart meter roll-out should be prioritised and the move to half-hourly pricing brought forward, to put control in the hands of consumers through smart tariffs. They could then choose to wash clothes, cook or charge their car when energy is cheap. Likewise, businesses could plan their energy use around cheaper periods. That could have a big impact on flattening the overall daily peaks in energy demand, with massive benefit for energy security and cost. It would then make sense to regulate for white goods to be smart as standard, to automate the way in which customers take advantage of cheaper price windows.
Thirdly, the report proposes that the Government should bring forward enforcement of the new homes standards and expand the energy company obligation—ECO4—scheme to insulate more cold homes, which would offer far better value for taxpayers than our current policy of subsidising heating for draughty homes. We also recommend that an organisation modelled on Home Energy Scotland should be introduced in England to provide better advice and support to households.
An area in which the committee feels that Government policy has taken a wrong turn is the energy cap itself. It was a well-intentioned policy to stop customers being ripped off by their energy supplier if they did not switch provider often enough, but the current energy crisis has exposed major flaws in the operation of the cap. The cap is below the true cost of supplying energy, so almost all customers are now on capped tariffs in addition to extremely costly additional taxpayer subsidies. That has killed the market for switching between energy suppliers, and has exacerbated the bankruptcy rate of energy suppliers. The report recommends, first, a thorough review of the energy price cap; secondly, that the green levies on energy bills be permanently moved to general taxation to take away some of the regressive nature of levies on energy bills; and thirdly, that a more targeted system for energy bills be introduced. One specific proposal that is worthy of consideration is a cap for basic electricity usage per household, above which households are exposed to the full unsubsidised costs of energy.
Fourthly, our report recommends a new requirement for energy suppliers to offer long-term, fixed-price energy deals so that consumers and businesses have the budgeting certainty that so many achieve through taking out fixed-rate mortgages for their homes or buildings. Fifthly, energy regulator Ofgem must shoulder much of the blame for supplier failures. Financial regulation of energy suppliers has been far too weak. The Government should direct Ofgem to implement banking-style financial stability requirements to avoid a repeat of recent history, whereby an energy supplier can make money when energy costs are below the cap but goes bust if energy costs rise above the cap, leaving all bill payers to pick up the tab.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
There are days when the renewables fail and, when that happens, we have to buy electricity in, particularly from places such as Belgium. Should the Government not be expanding what they have started in looking at nuclear, which my right hon. Friend has not mentioned, and particularly small nuclear reactors? The Government are looking at one type of small nuclear reactor, but there are two. Should we not be encouraging the Government to move into that field, fast?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of nuclear. I am a huge supporter of both small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors. They offer massive potential for baseload energy here in the UK, which is crucial. While there are not recommendations in this particular Back-Bench committee report, I agree with him.
To conclude, I congratulate the Government on creating the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. There is no doubt that having a specific focus on tackling the energy trilemma is vital if we are to meet our goal of leading the world in tackling global climate change while building secure and affordable energy sources at home.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a considerable privilege to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), and I thank her for securing this vital debate for all of us.
This has been an important week because we have had the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which bluntly gives what is essentially a final warning to humanity. The report lays bare what is already happening because of the damage that we are collectively doing to our planet as a direct result of the energy choices we have made for the last century. Extreme weather caused by climate breakdown has led to increased deaths from intensifying heatwaves in all regions, millions of lives and homes destroyed in droughts and floods, millions of people facing hunger and “increasingly irreversible losses” in vital ecosystems. That is the damage that has already been done, and if we continue down this path, the final consequences will not simply be about deepening that damage. It is much more fundamental; it is about whether we can continue to live and survive on this planet. That is the harsh reality of where we are, and that is why this debate is so vital.
In the years to come, energy is everything. It is quite literally the be-all and end-all, because the types of energy we use will determine whether we meet the challenge of climate change, and it will determine whether humanity can live on this planet for the foreseeable future. Unless we move immediately to a completely new system of energy production, we will have neither security nor prosperity. We often talk in this House about the scale of the challenges we have faced since the financial crisis in 2008: how to deliver sustainable economic growth, drive investment in our economy, drive prosperity and drive up living standards. The enormous opportunities that we have in green energy would enable us to kick-start that, to answer the questions on the supply chain that the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire raised and to ensure we have the skills, so that we can lead the way in not only providing energy for ourselves but exporting green energy, just as we did with the oil and gas revolution in the 1970s. We have to rise to that challenge, and we have to rise to it here and now.
The terrible truth is that the UK is being left behind when it comes to green energy and green growth. The US and the EU are powering ahead, and we need to make sure that we are not playing catch-up in the United Kingdom. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022 makes a remarkable $369 billion available to climate and clean energy programmes in the US—just think of the scale of the opportunity that comes from that ambition. Where is our ambition to match that? President Biden’s programme is a real levelling-up agenda, making green energy the economic catalyst to restore and renew the industrial heartlands of the US. Likewise, the European Union is powering ahead. It is debating the passing of the green deal industrial plan, with which it wants to grow clean energy production, revitalise manufacturing and support well-paid jobs.
If I may, I will just look narrowly at Scotland for a minute or two, because I know the figures there better than the figures elsewhere. Last year, the SNP Westminster group commissioned what has been called the Skilling report—“The Economic Opportunity for Scotland from Renewable Energy and Green Technology”—which I know some colleagues in the House have read. There is no fantasy in that report, because we are just reflecting on what we already know.
When the report was published, Scotland was producing 12 GW of green energy. It is now producing about 13 GW, but the report highlights the potential to increase that figure to 80 GW by 2050: a fivefold increase over the course of that period, generating as much as four times the green energy that Scotland needs. That represents the opportunity to keep the lights on—a phrase that was referred to earlier—right across the United Kingdom, and ultimately to produce hydrogen on a scalable basis and export to other parts of the European Union as well. We need to take advantage of the natural opportunity that we have in green energy, making sure that we are at the cutting edge of that. According to Skilling, the transition from fossil fuels will ultimately deliver more jobs than we currently have in oil and gas—over 300,000 jobs by 2050.
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire talked about the planning regime and the skilled jobs that we need to develop in order to make this happen, but there needs to be a sense of urgency in doing all of those things, or we will miss that opportunity. There is an enormous challenge, if I may say so, in making sure that we have the jobs in turbine manufacturing and providing cabling. We will achieve that only if we have the visibility of the orders coming in that will encourage people to invest here from across the United Kingdom, and indeed, to come and invest from elsewhere.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
David Duguid
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I agree with pretty much everything he has said so far, which is unusual. I am sure he is familiar with the report by Professor de Leeuw at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, which assessed that at least 90% of the skills required for the net zero future already exist in the oil and gas industry. We should make the most of those skills while we can.
Ian Blackford
Actually, I agree with those comments from the professor and from the hon. Gentleman. When I have been in Aberdeen and been out looking at some of the offshore technology there, it has struck me that there is that transferability—if I may call it that—of skills from the oil and gas sector. Of course, we need to make that happen.
But what I would say is that, if Skilling is right—and I believe he is—the scale of the opportunity goes way beyond the jobs that we currently have in oil and gas. We need to make sure that we have the research and development and the innovation right across the supply chain, and that we are utilising not just our higher education sector, but the further education sector to deliver people with the appropriate skills to do this. That is an enormous opportunity. Out of that, there is an enormous opportunity to make sure that we have an industrial strategy that is fit for purpose as well. I would be delighted if we had these kinds of debates more often in this House—if we were actually having detailed discussions about how we do all this. What do we have to do to make the planning system work in a way that is respectful to local communities, but recognises the need and desire to move ahead?
Mr Carmichael
On the subject of planning and the delays that are associated with it, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in Canada, the time from consent to installation for a tidal device is around three years, whereas in this country, it is seven or eight. It comes down to something as simple as the fact that we do all the different impact assessments and the rest of it sequentially, when with a bit of imagination and creativity, they could all be done side by side.
Ian Blackford
I agree. The right hon. Member has made an important point. Often, the question is: how do we make sure we are protecting the rights of stakeholders and the rights of communities, while being able to do things at pace? What we have been talking about highlights the potential loss of technological leadership, because if we cannot do these things, we will not get that investment. In that context, let me go to the side a little, because I want to talk about one of the subsets of the green industry that has enormous potential for us.
We heard a comment earlier about nuclear and the opportunity to provide baseload. I have mentioned this in the House on a number of occasions, and I do not apologise for doing so again: there is enormous opportunity in tidal, and that has been demonstrated with the success we have seen with a number of projects. I encourage everyone in the House to examine a peer-reviewed Royal Society report published just ahead of COP26. It highlighted the opportunity of developing 11.5 GW of energy from tidal. If we look at the projects already developed in the United Kingdom, we tend to find that as much as 80% of that supply chain has been generated domestically. A number of the companies doing that are supplying equipment to such countries as France and Canada, as has been mentioned. There is a real danger that unless we recognise the scale of the opportunity, we will lose that leadership.
I am delighted that in the last contracts for difference round, the UK Government put in place a ringfenced pot of £20 million for tidal. That got us off to a degree of a start in fulfilling that ambition laid out in the Royal Society report. It was not as much as I would have liked. For us to fulfil that potential, we need to provide as much as £50 million annually, but I regret that over the past few days we have seen that that ringfenced pot will be cut to £10 million. I say to the House that we run the risk of losing this industry, and I appeal to the Government to revisit this issue. We can provide that baseload from tidal, as an alternative to nuclear energy. If we are ambitious about getting to that kind of scale in tidal, ultimately we will be providing that baseload on a more affordable basis.
David Duguid
I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, and we can all agree that we wish there was more money available for different things, but he might not be aware that the £20 million that was initially ringfenced was for a two-year period. It has since been changed to a one-year or annual allocation. The £10 million for one year is essentially equivalent to £20 million for two years.
Ian Blackford
When the announcement was made, it was on the basis that it would be £20 million pot. [Interruption.] I have spoken to many of the operators over the course of the last while, and they do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view. But let us try to find consensus where we can and see the opportunity in all this, because that is key to this matter.
Sir Paul Beresford
The right hon. Gentleman said that tidal would be an alternative to nuclear, but it should be in addition to nuclear. The demand that is coming and the demand if we move into hydrogen will be massive—beyond anything we can imagine.
Ian Blackford
I have talked about the Skilling report and the ability to get to 80 GW. There is the opportunity with tidal to provide the baseload. I argue on that basis that we probably do not need the investment in nuclear to get to where we need to get. One thing I referenced was that I did not believe there is any fantasy in the numbers we have from Skilling. They are eminently achievable on the roadmap that we talk about.
Let us look at some of the choices and where the money has to come from, and put that in the context of the debate we are having over the trilemma and the choices that many people are having to make because of the cost of energy. We know that a number of producers have made eye-watering profits as a consequence of high energy prices over the past year. This Government have rightly introduced a windfall tax. If we had wanted, we could have hypothecated some of that to make sure we were speeding up investment in renewables. We could have provided the £50 million that I am asking for on an annual basis so that we could fulfil that potential in tidal.
One aspect of the events of the past 12 months has been the enormous increase in share buy-backs from energy producers. In essence, what are share buy-backs? They are in effect a return of capital to shareholders. We have taxed the profits of the generators to some extent, but we have not taxed the return of cash to shareholders—windfall gains. On a one-off basis, we could have taxed share buy-backs in the same way that we tax dividends, and provided the ability to generate the investment that we need in our energy transition. That would have been the sensible thing to do.
Let me come back to the European Union, because there is already an €800 billion NextGenerationEU post-coronavirus pandemic recovery scheme. EU member states must reserve 37% of their spending for that green transition. About €100 billion of the EU’s 2021 to 2027 cohesion fund, which is dedicated to regional development, goes to green spending. Horizon Europe, the EU science and innovation programme, allocates €40 billion to green deal research and innovation, and industry partnerships. The investment I am asking for and that I believe we need in tidal has to be seen in the context of the scale of that investment.
On a subject that many of us discuss, carbon capture and storage, the EU has commenced its third round before the UK has come close to completing its second. We are all aware of the promises that have been made about carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland. There are Members in this Chamber who are as passionate as I am about making sure it happens, and let us remember why. If we are serious about getting to our net zero targets—whether 2045 in Scotland or 2050 in this place—then carbon capture and storage has to happen.
We have failed to back carbon capture and storage, and the harsh reality is that the renewable energy budget has been cut by a third and there has been the cut to the ringfenced budget for tidal stream. We need to make sure that we create competitive advantages out of the bounty that we know is there. Let us come back again to the green industrial strategy, because if we are able to develop our green energy sources to the extent that I believe we can, we need to make sure there is a competitive advantage for our industries and the industries of the future.
We also need to make sure that our communities benefit from the investment that is taking place. To take my own home island of Skye, an enormous increase in investment is coming down the line over the next few years in wind generation. We will be producing many times the amount of energy that the island of Skye can absorb by itself, yet there is an additional cost to access the network from producing in such remote and rural areas. There is a double whammy: because of the nature of the regional distribution market, we pay the highest prices to get the electricity back again. It simply is not good enough, and the communities making legitimate sacrifices in producing that energy have to be compensated effectively.
While we are talking about onshore, offshore and tidal, we should not forget the opportunities we have with pumped hydro storage. I delighted that, this week, SSE has announced a £100 million investment in the biggest pumped hydro storage scheme in the United Kingdom for 40 years. The Coire Glas scheme will power over 3 million homes, more than doubling the United Kingdom’s electricity storage capacity. Again, it is demonstration of what can be done in providing the baseload that is so necessary.
We need to pose the question why—in what is, for Scotland and arguably for the UK, an energy-rich country—people are facing the kind of costs that they have done over the last year. The average household bill in Shetland, if I may refer to that, in October 2022 was £5,578, more than double the UK average of £2,500, according to evidence submitted to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee by Shetland Islands Council. The latest available figures show that a third—33%—of households in remote and rural areas in Scotland are in extreme fuel poverty. That statistic has not been updated since 2019 due to covid, and therefore does not reflect the current cost of living crisis. There will have been a massive increase in the percentage of our households that are not just in fuel poverty, but in extreme fuel poverty.
The only place where the UK Government seem to be increasing investment is in nuclear energy, which is far more expensive than the renewable alternatives. The Institute for Public Policy Research said:
“If the Government are serious about reaping the benefits of the transition and levelling up, it should learn from Joe Biden, scale up public investment, and bring forward a serious strategy to build an economy that is prosperous, fair and green.”
The CBI said:
“The UK is falling behind rapidly—to the Americans and the Europeans, who are outspending and outsmarting us.”
The world faces an energy trilemma, but the UK faces a simple binary choice: will it continue to be left behind, or will we collectively work in humanity’s self-interest to tackle climate change and embrace the opportunity for green growth?
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker—I have not had the pleasure before now, so welcome to the Chair.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I found that I agreed with most of his speech, although perhaps not with some of it. In particular that last point about there being a simple binary choice—I think it is a mistake to think it is either one side of the argument or another. This issue is far more complex than that, and I will try to cover some of those points in my speech. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on securing this important debate. I joined her committee as the report was being completed, but I was delighted to play a small part in that report and provide a forward to it.
The energy trilemma refers to the need to find a balance between energy security, affordability, and sustainability. As we continue through the energy transition, which we have already started, we need to keep the lights on, generate heat, and enable transportation—in other words, we need to keep our society and economy alive and well, and do that in an affordable and sustainable way. We are all aware of the increased energy prices right across the globe, caused initially by global shortages as the world economy started to recover from the covid-19 pandemic, and exacerbated further by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing conflict there.
On affordability, I welcome the Government’s support for households and businesses through this difficult period, and particularly for those hardest hit. Fundamentally, however, affordability is best achieved by securing a reliable and plentiful supply of energy from a range of sources. Sustainability can also be defined in terms of keeping a secure and prosperous energy sector alive, including jobs and communities that the energy sector supports. More typically, sustainability usually refers to the impact that our social and economic activity has on the environment, and specifically to the impact on climate change from the emission of greenhouse gasses. Therefore, we need to keep the energy flowing, we need to make that energy affordable, and we need to reduce the impact on climate change created by the production and consumption of that energy. That is the energy trilemma.
The generation of energy for power, heat and transportation has, for many years, depended greatly on the combustion of hydrocarbons. That combustion of hydrocarbons has been shown to have a direct impact on the climate. So clearly, we must do something about that, and we are. The United Kingdom has already reduced carbon dioxide emissions by almost 50% compared with 1990 levels. Until covid, we had also grown the economy by more than 70% while doing so. In June 2019, the UK became the first major economy in the world to pass legislation to end our contribution to global emissions—in other words, net zero—by 2050.
Net zero means that any emissions would be balanced by schemes to offset an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, by planting trees or using technology such as carbon capture and storage. However, if climate change is a man-made problem as we keep hearing, it will need a man-made solution. Planting trees will make a contribution of course, and it is important we do that, as a return to nature, providing habitats and so on is very important.
Direct air capture is an exciting technology by which CO2 can be stripped directly from the atmosphere using a facility that, although large, takes up only about one 100th of the footprint that an equivalent area of forest would take to do the same job. That very expensive solution is still under development and we should keep a close eye on it. Besides, the captured carbon from such a process will still need to be utilised and stored somewhere.
That leads me to carbon capture, utilisation and storage. The inconvenient truth—if I can borrow that phrase—for some is that today about three quarters of the UK’s energy comes from oil and gas. Some 20% of our energy today is electricity. The rest of our energy use is fuel for transport, heat for homes, and industrial power and processes. It is absolutely right that we accelerate the installation of as many renewable sustainable and low carbon sources as possible, and as fast as possible. The UK Government’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, launched in November 2020, set out plans and commitments for a range of technologies, many of which have been discussed and will be discussed today, including CCUS.
That was followed in March 2021 by the North sea transition deal, incorporated later into the British energy security strategy in April 2022. The deal was and is a transformative partnership between the UK Government and the UK’s offshore oil and gas sector to harness the power of that industry to help deliver net zero by 2050. As well as formalising energy transition and decarbonisation commitments, the North sea transition deal unlocks up to £16 billion of private investment, supports up to 40,000 jobs, and reduces emissions by up to 60 million metric tonnes. In the two years since the deal was agreed, the offshore oil and gas industry has made significant strides in supply decarbonisation, developing CCUS and hydrogen, transforming the supply chain and facilitating workforce mobility, as was discussed earlier. The industry has reduced its own production emissions by 20% since 2018. Leasing rounds are being developed for electrification. Access to the grid is very important, something that has already been discussed. Just last week, the Chancellor committed £20 billion for CCUS development. Offshore Energies UK, the trade body that represents the offshore energies sector, has developed the world’s first well decommissioning guidelines for carbon capture and storage, and is advising on best practice for things like methane emissions reduction.
But some of the key pillars of the deal—Government support for domestic energy supplies, a stable fiscal regime for the sector and encouraging continued investment—have taken a little bit of a hit. I will come back to the energy profits levy later in my speech. Part of the deal is to ensure oil and gas for as long as we need it, and there continues to be demand. Even by 2050, it is estimated that we will still require between 15% and 20% of our energy, heat and transport to be supplied by hydrocarbons. It therefore makes sense that our own domestic source of oil and gas will need to be maintained and expanded to supply that demand, even as it continues to decline. We produce a little under 50% of our own gas at the moment, with a majority of the shortfall being supplied by other countries such as Norway, the US and Qatar. The carbon footprint of just getting that gas here can be up to twice as high as if it was produced here.
I welcome the UK Government’s launch of the 33rd UK offshore licensing round. Many have asked—I was hoping for a Labour intervention on that point, but the Labour Benches are woefully empty today—how that can at all be consistent with our net zero objectives. For the reasons I described, a barrel of oil or cubic metre of gas produced in this country is better for us than those produced elsewhere while we are still using it. Hydrocarbons produced here are done so much more responsibly, under the strictest of regulatory regimes, and create fewer emissions from transportation than those imported from elsewhere.
We also need to make sure we retain the skills, expertise, technology and the capital and revenue generated by oil and gas, which is still significant, despite being in decline, to help deliver the energy transition. Unlike previous licensing rounds, this licensing round has been launched following the introduction by the Government of the climate compatibility checkpoint. The checkpoint ensures that no offshore licence will be awarded that puts the UK’s Paris agreement and COP26 commitments at risk. It also puts more emphasis on the industry’s own operational emissions than previously, as well as keeping a close eye on the status of the UK as a net importer of oil and gas. We have been a net importer of oil and gas since 2004.
We will not get to 2050 with the lights on, our homes and offices heated and our economy still moving without oil and gas. It follows that we will certainly not get to net zero by 2050 without CCUS. The Acorn CCS and hydrogen project in my constituency forms part of the Scottish CCUS cluster. At the time of track 1 bidding it was generally regarded as the most advanced cluster and ready to go, and was selected as the reserve cluster for track 1. Crucially, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, it is the only CCUS cluster in Scotland. It is vital for capturing emissions from industrial complexes such as Grangemouth in the central belt or Mosmorran in Fife.
There are plans for a new CCS power station in Peterhead in my constituency, which, when complete, will be able to provide a stable baseload powered from natural gas but with the Scottish cluster activated, and 95% emission free. This new CCS power station will help to maintain energy security into the future, particularly as—unless we hear differently today—there is unlikely to be new nuclear anytime soon in Scotland. I look forward to the further detail on the £20 billion announced by the Chancellor last week on CCUS and the progression of track 2. I also look forward to the Energy Bill, currently on Report in the other place but due to come back here soon, I am told.
Even if we were to get to absolute zero emissions—never mind net zero—across the whole of the UK, those UK emissions add up to around 1% of global emissions. We often hear that as an excuse for not doing anything, but I do not believe that for a second. The real opportunity that we have as a United Kingdom is for Governments and Parliaments to come together and work constructively with industry, not only to get where we need to be in future but to use the skills, experience, technology and resources available to us here in this country. That will enable us to make the energy transition to net zero in the most predictive and successful way, to take the opportunity to lead the world in the process of energy transition and to show not just how it is done but that it can be done.
I want to finish on the subject of the energy profits levy. Opposition parties have called for and continue to call for ever higher taxes on oil and gas producers. Compared with almost every other business that currently pays corporation tax of 19%—due to rise next month to 25%—oil and gas companies were already paying 40%, with the EPL bringing them to 75% overall. Contrary to Opposition parties’ calls for a straightforward punitive tax, I welcome the investment allowance provided by this Government. However, the allowance is not available for all investment opportunities, including in renewables, as has been pointed out. I am told by OEUK that over 90% of members have downgraded their investment plans in the UK as a result of the EPL. I recognise that the revenues raised by this tax go some way towards paying some of the energy support provided by this Government, but I look forward to engaging with the industry and Government on how and when the profits made by these companies in this country are deemed to have returned to a more normal level.
The EPL has a particular impact on smaller independent operators such as Harbour, Ithaca, Spirit, EnQuest and a number of other small businesses, which do not have the resources of BP and Shell to invest elsewhere in the world. Another impact on the small independent producers comes from the revisions to the EPL to eliminate the price floor, which has had the unintended consequence of reducing lending capacity available from banks to the sector. Unlike some larger companies, the smaller organisations cannot afford to fund capital expenditure solely from their own balance sheets.
The independent operators will be vital to ensure the continued development of North sea oilfields as the major companies redeploy assets elsewhere, and are therefore critical to help the Government avoid the costs of stranded North sea assets in the medium to long term. That will be critical to safeguard the UK’s security of energy supply in years to come, while at the same time those companies’ resources, skills and expertise are used to ensure that we make the energy transition to net zero as planned.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on bringing this subject to the House. Her metaphor of the three-legged stool is a very good one. If we can move away from the immediacy of the problems, this debate allows us a few minutes to think about the issue in a more strategic manner. The point about the three-legged stool is that it works as a stool only if it has all three legs. If we take away any one of the three legs—affordability, security or decarbonisation—the other two will not achieve their purpose. The debate is often frustrating and ill served by false, binary choices. The point about a “trilemma” is that the choices that have to be made are about the balance of the progress we make on the three heads of the challenge, as well as the different means by which we seek to achieve them.
For years, to my certain knowledge, the debate has been bedevilled by easy options, and that remains true about some parts of the debate today. I remain to be convinced about nuclear, either in its own right or as a source of baseload, but sceptics like me have to then ask, “Well, where does the baseload come from?” From my point of view, there are enormous opportunities from developments such as tidal energy, which I will come on to as it matters a lot to me and my constituency. There is also the issue of storage and, beyond that, the flattening of the curve through supply-side and demand-side management. Again, it is all about balance. There is no silver bullet here; there is no one technology, area or direction of travel that will solve all our difficulties.
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire also spoke about local involvement in planning decisions. There is one other item that I would commend to her in terms of managing these issues: local benefit. Communities that are to have a wind farm, for example, have the opportunity to see some money coming back directly to their community, which makes an enormous difference.
In my own parish, we have a development of five wind turbines that provides a fund, which is administered by the local community council. My student sons have both benefited from that fund in terms of support given to them during their years at university. The support provided by such funds is small but meaningful. If we are to change the way in which we generate energy, from it being produced in large amounts in a small number of places to a much more diffuse pattern of generation, we have to find different ways of doing that.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The Back-Bench committee proposed that individual households living very close to a renewable project should have their energy bills subsidised or free for the duration of that project, so I agree with the right hon. Gentleman but I think it should be even more direct than just a pot, as is so often the case.
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely. We make progress on these things incrementally, so if we can get to that situation that would be music to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents.
In Orkney, we already generate more energy from renewables than we can use in our own community. However, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) observed earlier, because of the way in which the market is regulated and structured, we actually pay more for it. That is something that generates not just energy, but an enormous amount of resentment in the community as well.
Ian Blackford
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the progress he is making. There is a real issue about the disbursement of these funds because they are becoming particularly meaningful; it is a hot topic at the moment in Skye. We need to reflect on the powers that often lie with developers to make the determination as to how that pot is disbursed. We will have to be very careful across Government, here in Westminster and in the devolved Administrations, about setting the principles that have to be followed. If not, we will end up in a situation in which communities will, quite frankly, not get the benefit to extent that they should. We need to have effective governance in all of this to make sure that people are protected properly.
Mr Carmichael
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. With a commitment to the principle from the top, everything underneath tends to fall into place.
There is another aspect of community benefits in which we may have missed a trick in Scotland recently. Although we missed out on a sovereign wealth fund, apart from in Orkney and Shetland, in the 1970s, there would have been an opportunity to generate more of a sovereign wealth fund from offshore renewables in the ScotWind round. We missed the boat this time, but I hope we can make up for it in future.
In many ways, Orkney and Shetland demonstrates the energy transition issues and the trilemma in microcosm: we have long, dark, cold winters, we have poor-quality housing stock and we are off the mains gas grid, so we do not have the same opportunities for access to cheaper heating as other parts of the country. The affordability element therefore very much matters to us. We generate more electricity from renewables than we can use for ourselves, but because of how the market was regulated until recently, when we finally got consent for a cable to the Scottish mainland, we have not been able to maximise the benefits. It is galling that although we are leading the way in decarbonised energy production, we end up paying more because we are part of a market that is regulated for the UK as a whole and that relies too heavily on the wholesale price of gas, as we are now seeing.
Let me just vent parenthetically for a second or two about the energy company SSE and its occasional choice simply to stop paying people who are entitled to feed-in tariff payments. I always seem to have at least one such case on the go among my constituency casework. Just last week, I was able to secure eventual, long-overdue repayment from SSE of £72,000 to one farmer in my constituency. That was money that SSE owed him and there was absolutely no reason for it not to pay, but for arbitrary and unaccountable reasons it seems occasionally just to decide to stop paying people. To my mind, that is an abuse of the privilege that it has been given by successive Governments.
Orkney is home to the European Marine Energy Centre, which is just about to celebrate its 20th anniversary. It has been at the forefront of the development of tidal stream energy generation; no doubt it could now play a similar role in the development of floating offshore wind.
Like other hon. Members, I was delighted to see the ringfenced pot in the round 4 allocation, but I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. That is not just me speaking; the UK Marine Energy Council, RenewableUK and Scottish Renewables have all reacted badly, so I hope that the Department is already thinking about how to maximise the opportunities by getting some of the money back.
With the synergy between oil and gas, we have been at the forefront of the country’s energy needs for 40 years now, and the development of offshore renewables is the obvious next step. When I speak to apprentices, as I did during National Apprenticeship Week last month, they tell me that although they are starting apprenticeships in the oil and gas industry, they fully expect to have transitioned to something different by the end of their working lives.
For the past 40 years, my constituency has been home to the two largest oil terminals in western Europe: Flotta in Orkney and Sullom Voe in Shetland, which provide a visual demonstration of the just transition. EnQuest, the terminal operator at Sullom Voe, is now working on projects involving hydrogen, carbon capture, use and storage, and offshore electrification of production. It is a visual illustration of transition, but again it shows just how ill served we are by binary choices. All the time, we seem to be told, “You can have renewables or you can have hydrocarbons, but you can’t have both.” That is dangerous nonsense. We have allowed production of oil and gas on the UK continental shelf to decline in recent years, and it has been to our detriment. It was never put in these terms at the time, but I cannot think why anyone ever thought it would be a good idea to rely on Vladimir Putin for the purchase of our gas and Mohammed bin Salman for the production of our oil when we have a rich resource on our own doorstep. As we heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the production of oil and gas in the North sea or to the west of Shetland is much less carbon-intensive than importing it from other parts of the world.
The point, surely, is this: it is not an either/or. There is no route to decarbonisation and achieving net zero other than one that goes through oil and gas production. I do not want to see the future generations of my constituents working in oil and gas. I do want to see them work in renewables, but I think that that will be much more likely if we take a long, hard, clear-eyed look at what happens in the future with oil and gas production on our own continental shelf.
There are many other things that we should be doing, such as managing supply and demand and increasing the amount of storage and smart grid—something that offers great opportunities for those who can turn on their washing machines at the other end of the country using their smartphones, although I suspect that it would be a bit more challenging for the members of the community who would benefit most from opportunities of that kind.
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has done us a great service in initiating this timely debate. I hope that its strategic aspects have been heard and understood on the Treasury Bench, and will be acted on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I shall need to start the winding-up speeches at about 4.30 pm. Three Members are still waiting to speak. So far the speeches have been running at about 13 minutes, but I am afraid I must ask Members to confine themselves to about seven minutes if everyone is to get in.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I shall be happy to accommodate your request, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for securing the debate. Her framing of this issue—her description of it as an energy trilemma—is typical of her shrewd and clear thinking: it does an excellent job of setting out the nature of the challenge. I was delighted to be able to feed into the report that she produced, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), on deep geothermal and mine water technology.
This issue is more important than ever. The western world has come to learn, in an abrupt and challenging way, the cost of relying on states such as Russia for energy supplies. The record of Europe in this regard, and that of Germany in particular, will be viewed through the long lens of history as naive, and I am glad to see Europe now united in understanding the importance of prioritising our security—energy or otherwise.
I know that these Backbench Business debates are held in a less party political spirit than others, but I must say that I have been surprised by what the Opposition have had to say about this issue in recent months. Let me remind them, and the House as a whole, that it was Tony Blair who said, during an EU-Russia investment conference that he chaired in 2005, that increasing reliance on Russian oil and gas was not something to be concerned about. Both Mr Putin and Mr Blair insisted that the EU’s growing reliance on Russia for energy would not compromise the ability of EU leaders to express concerns, and that our economic futures were “bound together”. Opposition Members should remember that.
I have also noted with interest that it seems that the original Captain Hindsight, the Leader of the Opposition, has now been joined by a lieutenant in the form of the shadow Energy Secretary, whom I notified that I would mention him. When I looked through Hansard to find his contributions over the last few years, I was shocked to discover that he had not spoken about energy security in 2021, or in 2020, or in 2019; in fact, he had not spoken about it for 10 years when he finally did so in March 2022. Maybe he has spoken about it elsewhere and I have missed it. I can, however, confirm that the shadow Minister has been much more successful in that regard, raising the matter repeatedly. Perhaps he should put in for a job from the Leader of the Opposition.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Would the hon. Member like an edited copy of the speeches that I have made about energy security over the years? I think he might find something useful there.
Dr Mullan
As I explained, the hon. Member has a good track record. I was talking about the shadow Energy Secretary—as he was called until recently. I apologise if I did not make myself clear; I thought that I had. As I said, I think the Opposition should be cautious in their criticism of us. I make that point not to suggest that they have been unacceptably slow in this regard, but to show how, across the western world, we politicians have been too slow to recognise the danger and too quick to work with Russia.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire clearly laid out, we must find a path forward. Many of us in the House have advocated a variety of approaches, and I encourage the Government to be ambitious and innovative. I want to use the rest of my speech to talk about one technology that I think can help us meet the demand of the energy trilemma: deep geothermal heat and energy.
Deep geothermal heat and energy is an environmentally friendly, dependable and cost-effective source of heat and energy that can be found right under our feet. The technology is based on relatively simple concepts: first, that heat radiates from the earth’s interior; secondly, that while it dissipates once it reaches the surface, the heat remains significant at depths accessible with current drilling technology; and thirdly, that water can be used to absorb and transmit that heat to the surface.
Those mechanisms are what heat hot springs, most famously demonstrated in the UK by the Roman baths. Iceland has uniquely conducive geology and enjoys vast utilisation of geothermal energy. While natural occurrences of any significance are relatively rare, boreholes can be drilled to access this natural resource.
Deep geothermal energy heats 250,000 homes in Paris, and across France more than 600 MWh of heat is produced annually as the Government aim to increase the number of schemes by 40% by 2030. Munich is pouring in €1 billion through to 2035 to develop geothermal energy and make the city’s heating carbon neutral. Germany already produces more than 350 MWh of heat annually, and its Government are targeting at least 100 new geothermal projects.
The primary method by which we assess the scale of the opportunity for geothermal heat in Great Britain is geological temperature data collected from petroleum borehole data, mining records and a number of boreholes drilled as part of geothermal studies. I have been introduced to deep geothermal technology since my election as Member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich in December 2019, and my research has encouraged me to see its potential. Theoretically, it is able to provide enough heat energy to meet all our heating needs for at least 100 years, and even a conservative estimate of what we could utilise suggests that it could provide 15,000 GWh of heat for the UK by 2050.
In the UK, perhaps because of our past success in drilling for oil and gas and our status as a world leader for cheap wind and solar, we have fallen further behind on geothermal. But getting to net zero by 2050 in such a way that we share the proceeds of investment and utilise as much of our existing skills and workforce as possible will require us to pull every lever, and deep geothermal is an important one that will help us in the transition from oil and gas with our existing industries.
Like wind and solar were at the outset, schemes in Europe have been supported by things such as insurance and incentive schemes from Governments. I think it is the lack of such schemes in the UK that has led us to fall behind. I do not think the industry is asking for the open-ended subsidies that were originally in place for wind and solar, but a time-limited, targeted scheme of support would make a difference. I was pleased to see the set-aside in contracts for difference for tidal power and the green gas support scheme, which mirror the sort of thing that the industry is asking for.
I was delighted to be asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of geothermal technology and its potential in the UK. I am pleased to say that the first draft has been completed, and the report should be published shortly. It contains interesting figures on the potential overlap with levelling up, and I look forward to sharing the findings with the Secretary of State and the rest of the ministerial team.
Whether the technology is deep geothermal or nuclear, tidal or hydrogen, there are opportunities to create jobs, grow our economy and make us more secure. I look forward to seeing us drive this agenda forward, for the benefit of my constituency and the whole country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for securing this important debate. We do indeed face a worrying trilemma as we seek to balance energy affordability with security of supply and sustainability. I believe the solution lies in clean energy, with renewables generated here in the UK tackling security concerns. As the renewables sector develops, prices come down.
One cannot talk about energy without being aware of the source of our current focus: Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Even though we were not directly reliant on gas from Ukraine, our reliance on fossil fuels links our energy prices intrinsically to the international market, which shot up post invasion.
Under this Government, huge strides towards green, sustainable energy sources have been taken. The UK is ranked fourth out of 127 countries on the world energy trilemma index, our energy generation in the last decade having reversed from 40% coal in 2012 to 40% renewables last year. We need to continue this drive towards affordable, sustainable energy generated in the UK. But is renewable always sustainable, and is sustainable always renewable?
Living somewhere as beautiful as North Devon, where we have renewable energy sources in abundance—the wind rarely stops blowing, we have massive tides and the sun shines most of the year—it is no wonder that locals look to community energy and are increasingly bewildered that they cannot plug their solar panels into the grid. I know the new Department is working to upgrade our grid, but the pace of that is reducing our ability to move more rapidly towards our own energy supply. We must rapidly improve access to the grid for small businesses and farmers who wish to generate energy using solar or wind turbines on their property, and who wish to sell the excess back to the grid or hope that battery storage technology will rapidly catch up to enable them to use the energy later.
Community energy is hugely popular. While recognising the grid constraints that may limit the feasibility of supply in some parts of the country, I hope we can find ways to enable sites that generate low-carbon electricity on a small scale to export their energy to an electricity supplier on fair terms. Larger suppliers should work with community schemes to sell the power they generate to local customers. Amendments to this effect have been tabled in the Lords, and I hope steps can be taken to accommodate the amendments regionally, where viable, and to explain why that cannot happen in other regions. What is being done to progress these measures, which have cross-party support from almost half the MPs in this House?
Localised schemes tend to be supported, and innovative biomass schemes, such as the chicken dung generator in South Molton in my constituency, help local farmers while generating enough energy for the town. But is all biomass equal? Small biomass schemes that use local resources are, indeed, sustainable and, through replication, potentially scalable. I would argue, as would numerous eminent scientists, that biomass generation involving 4 million trees a year, shipped around the world on diesel vessels, is neither sustainable nor scalable.
Woody biomass energy generation in sparsely populated countries with large forested areas may be able to claim sustainability, but, in a country that is already importing wood to build houses because of the low levels of forestation, that is not the case. Not only do we need to build homes and furniture, but much can be built from the same waste wood currently burnt for energy, which is causing surging wood prices, not to mention that burning wood releases carbon into the atmosphere, whereas building retains the carbon in the product.
We need to ensure that we are accurately calculating the true carbon costs of our different energy sources, including the costs of bringing the raw materials to the site of energy production. As we go through the current transition to a cleaner and more secure energy supply, we clearly need many different energy sources, but we also need to be honest about the true environmental costs of some of the decisions we are taking, and we need to ensure we have a strategy that increasingly relies on affordable, home-grown energy sources that are genuinely sustainable.
Genuine renewables are, indeed, sustainable. Some of the newer sources, such as floating offshore wind, are themselves dealing with inflationary pressures. Although I warmly welcome the Department’s commitment to floating offshore wind, and recognise that annual auction rounds will attract more developers into the market, the progress of allocation round 5 has, to date, not been smooth. As chair of the APPG for the Celtic sea, I am delighted that today we have seen the announcement of the Celtic freeport and remain optimistic that the announcement on funding for ports will recognise the importance of supply chains to securing fantastic jobs all around the Celtic sea—not to mention that, although the wind does not always blow, it blows the other way round in the Celtic sea, to the north-east, which is why it is vital that multiple schemes progress tangentially.
There is great optimism about the future of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, and that the current round’s budget can be extended to recognise the increase in the number of schemes ready to progress, but this does not tackle the damage already done due to the nature of the negotiations. Developers have repeatedly expressed concern that the strike price in this round is too low. I recognise that this is a complex negotiation and that there is an element of who blinks first, but to retain our world-leading position in the sector we need to recognise that other international opportunities are rapidly opening up for the same companies. Why would they invest here if they start with a cripplingly low strike price? Developers that have already invested many millions of pounds into these schemes have been told that officials do not believe their figures and would rather let the round fail than discuss the price—not to mention that it is not all about price, as this debate clearly highlights. Floating offshore wind is fundamental to our longer-term energy security. As we have seen with other sectors, new technologies need a leg up to get them up and running.
I struggle to understand how we are now committed to developing a Celtic sea supply chain, yet have possibly created an auction round that may see no projects progress in the Celtic sea. The Spanish Government recently saw a round more or less fail because of a similar failure to recognise the inflationary pressures developers are under. One investor has already publicly stated:
“UK Offshore is over for us now”.
I fear that we are sleepwalking into a missed opportunity, with unintended long-term issues with developers. I hope that no one needs to blink and that with eyes wide open we can work with the developers to ensure that multiple projects progress in this round.
We have come so far, led by this Government. I hope that the new Department will continue this journey, recognising that it is already named to tackle energy security and sustainability. I know that, given the huge amount of financial support already given to consumers and businesses, affordability is drummed into everything it does. I hope that this tripod approach continues and that legs do not get lopped off in problematic negotiations as we move through the transition from fossil fuels to a cleaner, greener, cheaper and more secure future energy supply.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for securing this debate and for being a fantastic chair of the 1922 Back-Bench business committee. It has been an honour to be her vice-chair. As she mentioned, the committee has looked in detail at the challenges of the energy trilemma over the past year. Like her, I am delighted that the Government have agreed with our analysis that energy issues have moved up the agenda so far that they merit a stand-alone Department.
The trilemma of the cost of energy, energy security and achieving our net zero ambitions affects every household and every business in every corner of the globe. Policy changes have emerged in reaction to the impact on energy costs of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The price of gas and electricity has spiralled, and much of our thinking has been dominated by the challenges of cost and energy security. Renewable energy created here in the UK, as a domestic source of energy, will not only reduce our reliance on international fossil fuel markets that can be influenced by bad faith actors, but offer great opportunities for green jobs and growth right across the UK. There is potential to revitalise UK manufacturing to support the growing supply chain in pursuing energy sovereignty.
Offshore wind will be the backbone of the UK’s future electricity system. In 2020, solar and wind produced nearly 30% of the UK’s electricity, which represents a nearly tenfold increase on the level in 2010. However, we know the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. As renewables become a bigger share of the market, this intermittency problem will become a bigger issue, particularly when we are trying to get above 80% to 90% low-carbon generation. In part, onshore wind and solar have a role to play in this. Despite it being one of the cheapest sources of power, onshore wind still faces barriers to development. Therefore, it is a welcome shift in Government policy to consult on devolving planning decisions on new onshore wind in England to local authorities, to enable onshore wind to be installed where communities want it and with their benefiting.
Intermittency can also be mitigated by changing the design of the UK’s electricity market. Today, there is a single national price for electricity across the whole of the UK. Moving to a system of local pricing in the electricity market would also incentivise building production capacity closer to demand, thus reducing the overall amount of infrastructure. Other solutions to intermittency exist. We can do more to encourage investment in short- term storage such as batteries, and long-term, inter-seasonal storage, for instance, hydrogen storage and hydropower.
The recent inquiry by the 1922 Back-Bench business committee heard from witnesses on barriers to deploying energy projects in the UK, which include the planning system and delays in connecting to the electricity grid. Members will forgive me, but being from Stoke-on-Trent I have to give the ceramics industry as an example here. Many UK ceramics businesses could make the switch from gas to electricity for the firing of the kilns, but several hurdles block that, one being that the cost and time delays for connection through distribution network operators make it prohibitive. Whether the energy is gas, electricity or perhaps, in future, hydrogen, security of supply is critical. Kilns are designed to slowly warm up and cool down. If the energy is suddenly cut off, the damage to the kilns can be irreparable. That means that a method of storing renewably generated energy must be found that enables us to deliver a consistent and continuous supply.
To address the energy trilemma, we also need to think seriously about how to transition effectively to clean energy, and about sustainability and our net zero goals. To achieve net zero, the UK needs to decarbonise its power sector by 2035. While emissions from electricity generation have fallen by 69% since 2010, we still have a long way to go to achieve that goal. That is why the first part of our Back-Bench report looked at ways to unblock renewables. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), mentioned deep geothermal, which uses the high temperatures and pressure deep inside the Earth. There are no fully operational deep geothermal plants in the United Kingdom, but there are two close to completion in Cornwall, and I am delighted that my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central is also destined to be an early adopter. As the city of pits and pots, we have a long history of energy-intensive industries, which also means a history of innovation in energy efficiency. Just as our potteries will move from being coal-fired to gas-fired, so we must be at the forefront of the next energy revolution and embrace geothermal energy, which has great potential.
Another recent project in which I have been involved is the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness, an effort to explore how the UK can reach net zero without undermining the competitiveness of British industry. Our industries can play a key role in the transition to net zero by investing in new technologies that are vital to decarbonisation. However, we are not operating on a level playing field; they face international rivals who can dominate supply chains without having to worry about net zero regulations or environmental targets. It is important that the challenge be addressed, so that we can transform our energy-intensive industries and industrial communities, and so that they become the nexus for green growth, and not the victims of an inevitable decline.
My final issue is the cost of energy. I have lobbied the Government on behalf of local energy-intensive industries in Stoke-on-Trent Central, and on behalf of small businesses and charities that are struggling with their bills, and I welcomed Government support for families faced with a choice between heating and eating. However, the need to choose between energy and food extends to food production, too. Horticulture businesses decided to postpone early crop production where the cost of heating the growing environment was unaffordable. That, combined with crop failure due to extreme weather conditions in continental Europe and north Africa, led to UK supermarkets having gaps in their fruit and vegetable sections. Given that we are looking to reduce the air miles in our food system in support of our ambitions to decarbonise and move towards net zero, we need to produce more in the UK, and British farmers need support with energy costs. We need to rebalance our food production and accept that the UK’s cheap food culture is unsustainable.
As a result of the rise in the cost of production, the percentage of household income spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks has risen from 10% in 2021 to 16% this year. Before the cost of living increases, Britain spent less on food and non-alcoholic drinks than any other country in Europe, and our diet has remained the highest in fat, salt and sugar. We need a fundamental recalibration of the value that we place on a healthy diet, and we need to accept that growth in local food production comes at a price worth paying.
If we get it right, the energy trilemma will create new opportunities to grow the economy, achieve our net zero ambitions, and guarantee affordable, reliable and sustainable energy for the future. This is the moment to embrace a green industrial revolution.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate. I must admit that I did not realise when she secured the debate that I would effectively be responding to a Tory Back-Bench 1922 committee report. It comes as an even greater surprise to me that I agree with the recommendations she has raised. She did say that there were 30-odd recommendations, though. She did not go through them all—I thank her for that—but I suspect that I would find some among them that I disagree with.
As I say, I agree with the right hon. Lady on the points that she brought forward. We really do have to unlock renewables, and I agree about the need to reduce demand. One way to do that is to increase energy efficiency installations; the Government must really ramp up action on that. One thing I would say to the Minister is that I am now getting feedback that the roll-out through ECO4 is not going as quickly as suppliers would like it to go; they are already behind on progress this year, so maybe we need to look at ways to target the right homes for energy efficiency upgrading.
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire obviously took credit for the creation of the new stand-alone Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I welcome that new Department; to be honest, it was long overdue, but at least it now seems to have the right priority within Government. I also completely agree about the number of grid upgrades that will be required. We need much better forward planning, and it was certainly an eye-opener when she said that we had seven times the amount of infrastructure still to be built. There is no doubt that Ofgem has failed on that. National Grid ESO confirmed two weeks ago to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that it paid £4 billion in constraint payments last year. That is effectively £4 billion wasted that could have gone towards grid upgrades, storage or other mechanisms, and it shows how Ofgem needs to get a grip on the issue and allow anticipatory investment.
We need to imagine what the grid will be required to look like in 2050 and start planning for that now. I am concerned at the piecemeal approach that has been taken; even when the grid has been upgraded, we are building in future constraints already instead of putting in the right capacity. That will cost more money in the long run and block renewables from coming online.
I must say I also welcome the right hon. Lady’s conversion to referendums. She will find that on the SNP side we completely agree with the need for referendums, and I look forward to her support on that matter. I was also glad to hear her compliment the independent advice body Home Energy Scotland, and it would be good to see a completely independent body set up in England to give free and impartial advice and help people to get the measures required.
It is no surprise that I agree with the points my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made. He is right that the IPCC report highlights the urgency to take action now, before it is too late. He also highlighted the fact that investment is relocating to the United States where there is momentum because of the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, here we have the electricity generator levy, but no renewables investment allowance. We really need to look at some form of that. My right hon. Friend obviously mentioned the Skilling report, the opportunity potentially to scale up to 80 GW of green electricity generation in Scotland and how important that could be in a just transition, creating 300,000-plus new jobs.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend on tidal stream. I have been trying to highlight the issues with the funding pot announced for AR5—it is definitely not enough money, especially with inflationary pressures. MeyGen in the Pentland Firth is the biggest tidal stream site in the world, but it has confirmed that it now faces inflation pressures of +50% on the AR4 strike rate that it bid against. The only way that that project can grow is if it gets to scale up through a bigger proportion agreed in AR5, and for that there needs to be a much bigger budget. I am pleased to say that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to meet me next week, and I will certainly make the case for at least £40 million, which is what I have been asking for.
In a real twist, I agreed with the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). There is no doubt that we will still be using oil and gas in 2050 and will still need to utilise them as an asset. As he rightly said, Scotland is a net exporter of oil and gas. In fact, it supplied almost 50% of the UK’s gas consumption last year and 75% of the oil.
When we talk about energy security, though, we must be realistic and accept that, while even a lower percentage increase in production for the North sea increases energy security, that oil and gas can be traded on the international market and does not necessarily come directly into the UK market. There has been a 30% reduction in oil refinery capacity in the UK since 2010, so even a lot of the oil for use in end products here has to go abroad to be refined and then come back. The security issue is not quite straightforward, but I agree that that is an asset we must continue to utilise.
Mr Carmichael
What view does the hon. Gentleman take, then, of the Scottish Government’s current consultation on presumption against future development?
Alan Brown
There is no harm in consulting. We need to look at that and have proper climate compatibility checks—I think that is the right way to go about it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about direct air capture, which could, of course, play a role as part of the wider Acorn cluster, but I repeat that, with £20 billion announced for carbon capture and storage, it is disappointing that we are still waiting to hear any firm commitments on Acorn. The Budget mentioned a possible track 1 expansion, so can the Minister advise me on whether Acorn might be included in that this year, or will it rely on track 2? If so, when will we hear an announcement about the track 2 process?
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly mentioned the fantastic EMEC facility. I urge the Government to come forward with funding to replace EU funding and keep EMEC going. He said that he was not too sure about nuclear. My views on nuclear are well known, but I repeat that I am completely against it. Hinkley is costing £33 billion; Sizewell C will cost something like £35 billion. Think what we could do with that money in energy storage, energy efficiency and even grid upgrades. That £35 billion is just a waste of money. Sizewell C will not be constructed for 12 to 15 years, and there is not even one successful EPR project in the world. SMRs are being promoted, but there is not even an approved SMR design in the UK. Rolls-Royce tells us that it will somehow get them up and running by 2029, but that is a fallacy when the regulator has not even approved the design yet. At £2 billion a time, SMRs are not exactly cheap, and that money could be better spent elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) made a good point about the potential for geothermal, and I agree with him. We have a lot of former mineworking areas in Scotland and other areas of the UK, and they could be a place to start on the potential for geothermal. It would be good to see Government support for that.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned community energy, an effective Local Electricity Bill, and amendments to the Energy Bill. Certainly, I have been a supporter of the Local Electricity Bill. I would be happy to consider that on a cross-party basis when the Energy Bill comes to the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned intermittency issues. Yes, we need to deal with them, but that can be done with pumped-storage hydro, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned. All that is required to get Coire Glas over the finishing line for final investment and approval is a green cap and floor mechanism for revenue stabilisation. Some £1.5 billion will be fully funded by SSE Renewables—no subsidy or Government guarantees have been asked for; just the revenue stabilisation mechanism.
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made a good analogy, which everyone picked up on, and I agree with her, but although we are calling it the energy trilemma, we also need to look at it as an opportunity —the opportunity that comes with decarbonisation, green energy, new jobs, just transition and by bringing bills down in the long run. We have to grasp that opportunity to have a truly green renewable energy grid supplying homes across the UK.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on securing it. I thought that it was about tackling the energy trilemma, so I have prepared all sorts of interesting things about the energy trilemma and how it works. However, although the contributions have been interesting, the debate has not necessarily been about the energy trilemma.
The right hon. Lady spent a lot of her contribution talking about the 1922 Back-Bench committee report on energy, which sounds very interesting. Indeed, it appears to contain quite crucial insights, particularly on the need for speeding up the planning system as far as grid development is concerned, speeding up connections, and developing new connections and ring main in offshore wind. As far as I am concerned, those things are crucial to delivering the rest of our green agenda. I can offer her a slogan, “no transition without transmission”, which she might want to put on the front of a future report. They are crucial insights, and it would be a good idea for her to provide a submission to the Labour party national policy forum on this, because she would get a better hearing than she would from the present Government.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the three-legged stool. This is about how we achieve our net zero outcomes while taking the whole question of affordability and of energy security along with us as we go. This is not a zero-sum game. It is not the case that if we consider affordability and security, we take away from our net zero ambitions. After all, we in this House already decided which of those legs we are going for most strongly when we decided on net zero as our target as far as climate change is concerned. That means we have to consider the energy trilemma from the point of view of not whether we will get there but how we can get there with those other matters being taken into account.
I would prefer to put the question of energy security into a slightly different mode, and that is the one it was put in by the World Energy Council, which has done a lot of work on the energy trilemma as a tool for deciding how we make progress in these areas together. It has produced an isosceles triangle—I am confident that the word “isosceles” has not been recorded in Hansard before—that has spines going to the centre of it, and we can advance further along to each corner from the centre with various elements of the energy trilemma in it. We have decided to advance substantially down the left-hand spine, which is the sustainability part of the triangle. The job we have to do is make sure that what happens with the other two legs does not draw back the sustainability leg but enhances it, which is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) made.
It also means we have to take decisions in other areas that are compatible with the particular length of spine we have gone down on that triangle. I would politely say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) that, while it may be the case that the hydrocarbons we bring into the UK are more carbon-intensive than the ones we produce in the UK for transport reasons and others, they are still hydrocarbons. With what we have decided, yes, we are going to need oil and gas in our future economy, but in far smaller quantities than is the case in our economy at the moment. We have to think about the right use for oil and gas in our future energy economy, making sure that as much of that as possible is produced in the UK as opposed to importing, but also that the total that we have coming into the economy as a whole is compatible with that net zero goal on the left leg of the sustainability triangle.
David Duguid
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving me the chance to come back on that point. Surely he will recognise, as I think he did in his statement just now, that there will be a gap for some time, and that we need to keep that gap closed. As rapidly as we all want renewable and low-carbon energy to be developed, we need to make sure that that gap is closed, and that we do not become even more dependent on foreign imports than we already are.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we should not be dependent on foreign imports. However, we need to be thinking about a long-term overall reduction in what we are doing. I do not think that simply saying, “We’re going to increase oil and gas production over the next period” is an answer to our present problems, because in the end, that is incompatible with the commitments we have made on net zero. We cannot go down that path in the long-term future.
Dr Mullan
I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he agrees that we should do as much of our own energy production as possible in the meantime, during the transition. Is that the official Labour party position—that we should be doing more oil and gas in this country while we’ve got to still be using it?
Dr Whitehead
No, what I said was that we should be trying to make sure that the reduced amounts of oil and gas that, in the end, we use in our system are as indigenous as they can be. That does not mean that we increase oil and gas production overall. We have to make sure that what we are doing in terms of our route to net zero and our energy provision for the future is secure and affordable.
For example, we are, I hope, on track to make our energy economy—for power—based pretty wholly on renewables. Certainly, that is a Labour target for 2030; I think the official Government target is 2035. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, that means that we have to take account of what the issue is for variables in that energy economy. But, we should not back those up with a whole lot more oil and gas; we should back them up with things such as storage, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned, and methods of making sure that we can use our energy as flexibly as possible. Also, our variability must be accommodated by what we do alongside it to make the overall system work. That is actually working quite well so far, inasmuch as renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy there is at the moment. On the affordability criterion, we really are making progress on that front.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned the Celtic sea. If we expand our offshore renewables into the Celtic sea, we will have a further security addition to what our energy supplies are going to look like, which will make that second leg work very well as well. Those are the sorts of things we need to consider for the future in terms of how we solve the energy trilemma: not going backwards with higher hydrocarbons, but making the lower hydrocarbons that we have work as well as possible.
I was about to denounce the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for being nasty to me, but I gather he was not being nasty to me, but to someone else entirely. I thought he greatly redeemed himself with his passionate espousal of deep geothermal energy, which is bang on. We need to do a lot more work on geothermal energy for precisely the reasons I have mentioned in terms of the energy trilemma in this country, as it is affordable and low carbon at the same time.
I thank hon. Members for this excellent debate this afternoon. By the way, in how we balance out the three legs of the World Energy Council trilemma tool, we are fourth in the world. That may be a free gift to the Minister, but it is something we are not doing badly on in this country as a whole.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I am going to go through my speech as fast as I can, because this has been an incredible debate. I would so much have liked to have had more time, but I want to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) to come back in at the end.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. We have had an informed and interesting discussion. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for bringing this important topic to the House. I also pay tribute to her for the important work she did in advancing the nation’s energy and climate security as Secretary of State with responsibility for those matters, as well as in her role as Energy Minister prior to that. I welcome the work that she and other Members have been doing more recently to contribute to this policy debate.
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the creation of the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which I am sure that the whole House will welcome. It will deliver policies at the heart of the Government’s agenda and tackle the energy trilemma. Indeed, the Secretary of State was mindful of the trilemma as he laid out his priorities, which are:
“To set Britain on a path to energy independence, in other words, delivering energy security.
To bring bills down as soon as possible, and keep them down, so wholesale electricity prices are among the cheapest in Europe, delivering consumer security.
To decarbonise energy as part of our commitment to net zero, delivering climate security.”
As the Minister with responsibility for energy consumers and affordability, I will be working hard with the Secretary of State to bring down energy bills for households and businesses and to tackle fuel poverty.
The Government have a clear plan to deliver our priorities, set out in our Energy White Paper, published in 2020, and in our “Net Zero Strategy”, published in 2021. The British energy security strategy, published in April last year, charted a pathway to reducing our dependence on imported oil and gas and achieving net zero greenhouse emissions by 2050.
In the 2022 edition of the index, the UK was ranked fourth overall, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) mentioned, ahead of G20 competitors including France, Germany and the United States. We are clearly doing something right. We should not consider the three aims of having secure, affordable and clean energy as being in competition with each other. In fact, enhancing security means decarbonising electricity, and both mean keeping energy bills affordable. To illustrate that point, I highlight the role that wind and solar play in our energy mix. They are not only the cleanest sources of power that we have, but the cheapest, and they contribute to our energy security by reducing our reliance on imported fuels.
I want to mention the contributions from a couple of other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) has a great depth of knowledge and brings real experience to the subject. He has a genuine commitment to the subject, and he mentioned carbon capture, usage and storage. That is a priority for the Government, and we are progressing as quickly as we can. The funding package announced at the Budget is unprecedented and demonstrates His Majesty’s Government’s strong commitment to delivering CCUS in the UK.
Amanda Solloway
I am so sorry, but I just do not have time.
I would particularly like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is a strong and consistent advocate for energy security and net zero. The UK currently does not have access to large naturally occurring geothermal resources that countries such as Iceland have, but I welcome the review he is doing and look forward to reading it.
To meet our ambitions on renewables, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire that we should accelerate the planning processes and networks infrastructure vital to bringing these projects to fruition. That is why the Government have committed to dramatically reducing timelines for delivering strategic onshore transmission network infrastructure by around three years, with an ambition to halve the end-to-end process by the mid-2020s. We look forward to the report from the Electricity Networks Commissioner, Nick Winser, this summer, and will take action in response to his recommendations.
We are committed to ensuring that projects benefit not only the nation as a whole, but the communities in which they are built. Members rightly call for an electricity system that is smart and flexible, and by the end of 2022 there were 31.3 million smart and advanced meters across Great Britain. The flexibility of the system is underpinned by a growing pipeline of electricity storage projects, with nearly 23 GW of storage already online.
Members have rightly pointed out the crucial role in energy security of reducing consumption through targeted energy efficiency measures, and we are already off to a good start. In 2010, only 14% of homes were in energy performance band C or better, but thanks to Government and industry action, 46% of homes now meet this benchmark.
The Government are bringing all this work together through the Energy Bill, which is the vehicle for delivering our strategy. It will modernise the way that we heat people’s homes, it will turbocharge British technology and it will liberate private investment, scaling-up jobs and growth.
To sum up, the UK is firing on all cylinders to deliver a green, resilient and independent energy system, with these three elements going hand in hand. As my right hon. Friend will know, the UK is a global leader not just in clean energy, but, as the energy trilemma index confirms, in cheap and secure energy. So it is only right that our ambition is to completely decarbonise our power system by 2035, subject to ensuring security of supply. This will provide the cheap, clean and British energy we need for decades to come.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I would like to reflect what a fantastic debate this has been. I think it is very rare to find the spokesmen for the opposition parties actually agreeing with Conservative Members, and even in some cases suggesting they might like to join our Back-Bench 1922 committee—and they would be most welcome.
I think it is wonderful on such occasions that we see the House break out in agreement. As I said at the start of my remarks, this is perhaps the biggest challenge that faces not just the planet, but definitely the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said he believes in referendums. Well, I believe in energy sovereignty, and in all sorts of sovereignty for the United Kingdom, so we will have that little frisson of disagreement between us.
Generally speaking, it was wonderful to hear the many and varied views of all right hon. and hon. Members in this place. It demonstrates that, when we do get together and are determined to do something that is right for the world and our own country, we can really make swift progress. I urge the Government to take really seriously some of the submissions made today and to make very urgent progress on them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling the energy trilemma.
Heritage Assets: London
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
When I stood for election, I promised my constituents that I would be a strong local voice. This debate is at the heart of that promise. The Cities of London and Westminster sit in the heart of our nation’s capital. It may be considered one of a handful of global cities, but to those of us who call it home it is also a group of local villages, with local people who are incredibly proud of their neighbourhood’s history. Whether it is Covent Garden, the square mile, Marylebone, Pimlico, Hyde Park or the west end, heritage matters. Heritage matters for so many reasons, not least because of its significant pull factor for tourism. In London we see that on a magnified scale, with people coming from all over the world to visit our heritage buildings, palaces, iconic sites and parks, and enjoy our cultural offer. Places such as Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey will come into sharp focus later this year with the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Right here, the Palace of Westminster, where we sit today, is a UNESCO world heritage site. I can therefore think of no better time for this debate, with this being English Tourism Week.
I recognise the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department is doing to bolster UK tourism, especially since the pandemic. In particular, I applaud the Department’s support for heritage and the arts including, of course, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, and measures within the tourism recovery plan. I do so in large part because London’s unique appeal lies in its ability for its heritage assets to tell the many stories of a 2,000-year-old city.
In London, our historic buildings are so common that it is easy for us to take them for granted without giving them a second thought, but without protection, those buildings may not be here in the future. That is made clear in Historic England’s annual at-risk register, which highlights the critical health of England’s most valued historic places. For those in the Cities of London and Westminster, such places have huge community importance, from the Buddhist temple in Margaret Street to the former Samaritan Hospital for Women in Marylebone, and the 18th-century church of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London. Those are valued historic places, many of which, according to Historic England, are at risk of being lost.
In 2022, London had 421 listed buildings, 101 places of worship, 25 archaeological entries, 12 parks and gardens and 72 conservation areas that were at risk of neglect, decay or inappropriate change. Thankfully, many have been rescued thanks to heritage bodies and dedicated teams of volunteers, community groups, charities, owners and local government, all working together. For example, two historic buildings with heritage value were recently under threat in the two cities, but both were saved due to community action that I was delighted to fully support. I speak of Bevis Marks synagogue—the oldest synagogue in continuous use in the United Kingdom—and the historic Simpson’s Tavern in Leadenhall, which is 250 years old and a constant in an ever-changing part of the City of London. Both were under threat, but local people stood up and said no to unfettered development, and yes to heritage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who I spoke to beforehand, for securing this debate. She has said not a word that I do not fully support and see the need for. She is right to say that our heritage assets are historic and need to be retained and protected, and that can happen only through funding. She also referred to tourism. Our tourism goes across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we can all benefit. I encourage people to come to London for their holidays, and I am sure she encourages people to come to my constituency of Strangford for holidays. Whenever she comes, I suggest that she goes and visits Scrabo tower, an historic building that has been retained for two or three hundred years. It overlooks Strangford lough, and whenever I go home on the plane on a Thursday night—I usually head home then, but now it will be tomorrow morning—I see Scrabo tower and I know I am coming home, and it always does my heart good.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he knows, I have visited Strangford several times and I plan to do so in the near future. It is a great and beloved place that is part of the United Kingdom.
We cannot rely solely on community action to protect our cultural assets. There are cases where local people and local government really make an effort to ensure we look after heritage assets—we saw that with the site of Smithfield market, which has been in place since the 14th century. It is now to be the home of the Museum of London, which is moving. The development plans pay a lot of attention to preserving the historic fabric of London for future generations, and I pay tribute to that. I appreciate that not everyone is happy to lose the meat market at Smithfield, but there are cases where development can be done well to create a new offer for the next generation.
There are also cases where people are still fighting to save their heritage. I share the concerns of Barbican residents about proposals to knock down and redevelop the former home of the Museum of London and Bastion House, and replace it with a major office development. I am delighted to work with the Barbican Association and Barbican Quarter Action to ensure local voices are heard by the City of London Corporation, and that these unique and important historic places are saved for community use, and, hopefully, housing. They are functional historic assets that serve their community and add to London’s cultural offer. That is so important, because communities want to see their local heritage thrive.
Yes, concentrating on digital and tech is important for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we cannot afford to lose focus on the conservation of the country’s cultural and historic heritage. Without that emphasis, heritage will be at risk. London is modernising, but tourism figures and local support underline the popularity of the historic landscape. People care passionately about their historic environment. They want to be involved in decisions about their heritage and how we manage change.
A good example of that recently was when constituents, as well as heritage experts and heritage bodies, wrote to me concerned that Westminster City Council was not, in their view, giving enough consideration to the historical significance of Victorian gas-powered lamps in its plans to replace them with LED replicas. There are now very few functioning gas lamps left in Westminster. Each, in its own right, is a work of art and a piece of our history, surviving the Blitz and London’s urban revolution, but not all of them will survive due to the council’s diktat to replace them with LED lamps.
Thankfully, the brilliant London Gasketeers, a fantastic group of locals, are rallying to save these historic lamps. I met the London Gasketeers on Maunsel Street in Westminster to show my solidarity with their cause, along with many locals. Many of those local people had never been part of a campaign before and they were delighted to support the London Gasketeers. The cause gained wide-ranging support: everyone from myself to the president of the GMB union—believe it or not—historians, actors, cabbies, heritage experts and, most importantly, a diverse mix of Westminster residents who care passionately about their local heritage. We have been successful. I pay tribute to the London Gasketeers and I am delighted to see many of them in the Public Gallery this afternoon.
Things like gas lamps might seem trivial to some, but like it or not, they are our material history. People care because Westminster’s heritage belongs to everyone. Such things matter to our overall social landscape, and are so important because London is a city where history and modernity remain intrinsically linked. The same can be said for urban development. Consider Soho, which has always been characterised by its narrow streets that lend it a friendly, human scale. That is part of Soho’s material history. However, the pavement licensing scheme, which might have been a great offer during covid as an emergency lifeline to many local restaurants and bars, could now have a detrimental effect on the historic streetscape if it becomes permanent without any protections in place. That is why I am calling on the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that guidance accompanying the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is clear about the conditions on which licences are granted. It is important that local councils have the flexibility to determine where it is appropriate to have a licence and where it is not.
Beyond the principal argument on access, we need to ensure that our streetscape is consistent with Soho’s conservation area status, respecting Soho’s unique history and character. We must preserve elements of material history and evolve sensitively in places that already have protection, such as Soho’s conservation area, or deserve protection, such as Westminster’s Victorian gas lamps or London’s historic buildings and places.
The preservation of our heritage and cultural assets draws millions of tourists to London every year. A VisitBritain survey found that the vast majority of tourists see Britain as a place where heritage meets vibrancy and modernity. The same can be said of our cultural institutions, as 15% of international tourists attend a play, musical, opera or ballet. I am incredibly proud of the vibrant arts and culture offer in my constituency, much of which can be found in the historic west end, dating back to the 1600s. In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of the UK’s art and culture businesses are based in the Cities of London and Westminster—around 2,500 businesses.
There is no doubt that the past few years have been extremely difficult for the arts and culture. The commercial uncertainty of the current climate has not helped. Rising global inflation and consistent train and tube strikes have all had a knock-on effect, hampering the recovery of this £2.4 billion sector. We saw during the pandemic the fragility of the industry. We cannot be complacent; we must protect our cultural assets. After all, heritage and theatre bring in £890 million a year, with more than 16 million people attending London theatres last year.
We need to work with the theatre sector in London to develop a strong UK talent pipeline, through investment in the arts premium and development of the culture education plan. My hope is that will mean that we can make sustainable, evidence-based decisions to conserve our culture and heritage while enabling people to enjoy them. While I am on this point, although London is not part of the new levelling-up agenda per se, it forms the heartbeat of British artists and culture. We risk losing those institutions at our peril. We saw that with Arts Council England’s rash decision to cut funding to the English National Opera, based in the London Coliseum, not far from here. That decision would have seen the loss of a national icon that gave local people so much—not just world-class opera performances but local initiatives such as the ENO’s Breathe programme, which supports people suffering with long covid.
I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the arts and culture sector, and in particular the west end. We cannot forget the strength of the sector as an entrepreneurial and SME-led economic driver locally, nationally and globally. For those reasons, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on the importance of protecting heritage assets in London.
Since London’s founding in what is now the square mile in the City of London, this has been an ever-changing metropolis. Each generation has added its own personal touch, culminating in a hugely diverse and historic modern city. Now more than ever, it is our duty to ensure that we do not lose what makes London London. Therefore, we must be proactive in protecting our cultural assets, from the west end to the wider historic fabric of London, which is becoming increasingly under threat.
I urge the Minister to reaffirm her commitment to protecting our heritage assets for future generations, and ask that she work with London’s cultural sector to stimulate growth, encourage tourism and safeguard the industry. London’s historic assets are at risk of being lost to history; we cannot allow that happen.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing a wonderful debate and for superbly highlighting London’s great and rich heritage, its wonderful villages and, of course, the importance of protecting historic assets for the benefit of present and future generations.
Like her, I absolutely adore London’s history. It is a pleasure to see her passion for her constituency again, after her contribution to last week’s debate on the lease of London zoo. I responded to that debate, and am responding to this one, on behalf of Lord Parkinson, who covers the arts and heritage portfolio for the Department. These are all fascinating diversions from my portfolio on data and digital infrastructure, and I am glad to say I have now taken on the tourism brief for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. With the creation of the new Department, tourism will play an increasingly important role within the work of DCMS.
As my hon. Friend said, our heritage is an essential part of our cultural landscape, our economy and our country. It is both globally renowned and world leading, playing a vital role in communities across the UK, making our places great to live in, work in and visit. She has a significant number of impressive heritage sites in her constituency, including the beautiful Westminster Abbey and the building in which we stand today. Her constituency contains more than 3,900 listed buildings, scheduled monuments and registered parks and gardens combined.
It is a fun coincidence, as my hon. Friend said, that the debate takes place during English Tourism Week. I hope she will agree that the UK’s tourism offer is truly world class. I had the pleasure of visiting the Goring Hotel, in her constituency; the staff were complimentary about her efforts to champion the hotel sector and they are doing fantastic work supporting young people into hospitality jobs. As she highlighted, the sector has been tremendously resilient after some difficult years. As it is English Tourism Week, I pay tribute to everybody in that sector who has done such incredibly demanding work throughout the last three years.
Our tourism landscape is iconic, from historic buildings and incredible scenery to culturally vibrant cities and world-leading hospitality, and that is not just here in Westminster. I loved the earlier plug for Strangford by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I hope he will not mind if I encourage hon. Members to sample the delights of my own constituency of Hornchurch and Upminster, including the vibrant Queen’s theatre. I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about levelling up, but I am pleased to say that the Queen’s theatre was a beneficiary of levelling up within London, with a great grant from the Arts Council of England. We also have a wonderful green space in Dagnam Park, the Manor, as well as Thames Chase forest and heritage assets such as Upminster Tithe Barn and its windmill.
It is undeniable that heritage sites are vital to our tourism industry and a tangible way to showcase our rich history. Of course, we want these sites to be around in the future for our children and grandchildren to learn from and be inspired by.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It seems the theatre in the Minister’s constituency was drawn out of the Arts Council lottery and won a prize. I am pleased to say that the theatres in my constituency also did not have their grants cut, but the loss of the London Coliseum and the English National Opera is a grave blow to London, and indeed to the whole country. Will the Government use their best endeavours to ensure that very misguided decision by the Arts Council is reconsidered?
Julia Lopez
I understand that hon. Members have made their feelings clearly known about ACE’s decision on the ENO. I know that a number of meetings have taken place, and I believe that some transitional funding is there, but I believe that this will continue to be a subject of ongoing discussion between the two organisations. I know that Lord Parkinson has been engaging with the issue.
We want to make sure we are protecting our historic buildings, statues and memorials. Local planning authorities are required to
“have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest”
in any building. Buildings, statues and memorials of more modest interest can also be locally listed by local planning authorities. We want to make sure that developers and local authorities take into account the integrity and preservation of heritage sites and the local area. When considering applications for planning permission, local authorities are required to take into account national policy. That includes a clear framework on proposals that are liable to result in substantial harm to, or loss of, a grade I or grade II listed building.
In some cases, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who retains the power to take over planning applications rather than letting the local authority take over, can take the final decision. That is done only in exceptional circumstances, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will have seen a number of such cases in her constituency over the years.
I enjoyed my hon. Friend’s reference to the Gasketeers campaign. As she set out, there is often a tension between development and heritage. That is brought into sharp relief by examples in her constituency, including the planned redevelopment of the City of London and of Liverpool Street station. As she articulately set out, there are also proposals to replace gas-powered lamps in Westminster with modern LED lighting. Just before this debate, I was at a tourism reception in this House at which a lady thrust into my hand a little card telling me that Beverley in the East Riding also has some of the oldest gas streetlamps still in situ. I give a shout-out to them—it seems that Westminster has a level of competition when it comes to heritage.
There are tensions between conserving the significance of historic buildings and modernising them to be fit for purpose for future generations. It is therefore vital that Historic England, which is our expert heritage adviser, and planning authorities work constructively with development teams to facilitate creative solutions to resolve some of those tensions.
I would like to name-check Tim Bryars, a key member of the Gasketeers campaign. I first came across Tim, who is a map and book seller in Cecil Court, during a campaign to save that gloriously unique street in Westminster; he then went on to sell me a beautiful silk pocket map of London in the 1800s, which I very much treasure. I commend him for his enthusiasm and for all the work of the Gasketeers’ campaign. [Interruption.] Ah—hello, Tim.
I understand that, after concerted campaigning, pressure and support from my hon. Friend, the council has seen the light, or the gaslight, and has paused what it was doing. Heritage England has now offered to identify a way forward and is encouraging listing applications, which it will be prioritising. I understand that a site visit is being undertaken. It will also be engaging on the redevelopment plans for Liverpool Street station in my hon. Friend’s constituency; it will look especially at the station, but also at the Great Eastern Hotel. Having sat on the planning committee for the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets, I fully understand some of the tensions.
We have managed to save some parts of London’s historic fabric from rather ugly and unpleasant development over the years. I am thinking of the campaigns on the Fruit and Wool Exchange. My hon. Friend also cited campaigns relating to Smithfield; I think back with some concern to some of the original proposals for Smithfield, which were not sympathetic. I genuinely believe that preserving that historic fabric can really enhance, and no doubt increase the value of, some developments. If a sensitive approach is taken, the protection of heritage and a developer’s ability to make a profit should not need to be an either/or.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is a criminal offence to demolish a listed building or to carry out works of alteration or extension that affect its character without the permission of the local council. A recent example in which a local authority played a critical role was the reopening of the Tavern Inn, a London grade II listed pub, six years after its illegal demolition: the owners were ordered to rebuild it brick for brick following a planning enforcement ruling. It is hoped that such cases will prevent developers from demolishing other sites without the relevant permissions.
My hon. Friend will also be aware of Historic England’s Heritage at Risk programme, which gives our Department a strategic, overarching view of the overall state of England’s historic sites. It identifies the sites that are most at risk of being lost as a result of neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Historic England updates the Heritage at Risk register every year, and the end result is a dynamic picture of the sites most at risk and most in need of safeguarding for the future. As my hon. Friend said, there are 16 at-risk sites in her constituency, and Historic England is actively engaged with owners and local authorities to find solutions and ensure that repairs are made. I know that she will be watching those 16 sites like a hawk.
The protection of London’s great heritage also extends to supporting the capital’s vibrant theatre scene and cultural offerings. Recent Government funding has ensured that access to arts and culture is not limited to the bright lights of the west end, but can be experienced by everyone. Investment in theatres across the country has increased through the latest Arts Council England investment programme, in terms of both the number of organisations supported and the volume of funding, which is now more than £110 million each year for nearly 200 organisations. There were also some positive announcements in the Budget about the extension of tax reliefs. That is on top of the unprecedented £1.5 billion culture recovery fund, through which more than £270 million was given to support nearly 700 theatre organisations across England during the pandemic.
It goes without saying that the protection of heritage and cultural assets for the benefit of future generations requires people to work in those places, and for children to learn about and understand their heritage. We recognise the importance of cultural education for the future of our world-leading arts and culture sectors in the UK, and we think that all children should be entitled to take advantage of those enriching cultural opportunities. We consider them to be an essential part of a broad and balanced education, supporting children’s health, wellbeing and wider development. This is something about which I am particularly passionate, and I am working closely with Lord Parkinson in my Department and with the Department for Education to publish a cultural education plan later this year. The aim of the plan is to highlight the importance of high-quality cultural education in schools around the country, promoting its social value. As Minister for the creative industries, I also see it as critical to building our pipeline of talent into those industries, which suffer from skill shortages—as does the tourism industry.
We are committed to ensuring that our historic environment is properly protected, promoted and conserved for the benefit of present and future generations, but also because it is that heritage that draws visitors from every corner of the world. Whether through the statutory functions that protect our most special historic buildings and ancient monuments or through the public bodies that it funds, such as Historic England, my Department seeks to protect and promote understanding of and access to our glorious historic environment.
Let me once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing the House’s attention to this issue and for, as ever, being a truly passionate advocate for London’s heritage.
Question put and agreed to.
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 View all Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 March 2023 - (23 Mar 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar subjects. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated; they sometimes appear later than on the final list. The selection grouping shows the order of debates and decisions for each amendment.
A Member who has put their name to a leading amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the leading amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw or seek a decision on the amendment. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in the group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
New method for determining fee limit
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“in consultation with relevant higher education sector stakeholders.”
This amendment would ensure that in determining whether the credit-based method or the fixed method is to be used, the Secretary of State will consult relevant higher education sector stakeholders.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) In determining which activity is to be regarded as a ‘credit-differentiated activity’ under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult the relevant provider, relevant higher education sector stakeholders, and any other sector stakeholders relevant to the credit-differentiated activity in question.”
In determining the nature and extent of “credit-differentiated activity” and the number of credits associated to it, the Secretary of State must consult the provider in question, higher education stakeholders, and other stakeholders to which the credit-differentiated activity relates to, for example, NHS Trusts or other representative bodies.
Matt Western
Thank you, Sir Robert, in advance of this morning’s sitting, and thanks to the Clerks for all their work hitherto.
I thought that the evidence sessions the other day were useful. The contributions of the Government witnesses, as well as those whom we had proposed, were extremely helpful. What we heard consistently was that the previous consultation was healthy, but we did not have the report back until relatively late. Perhaps there could be greater consultation.
The purpose behind the two grouped amendments 3 and 5 is to incorporate more consultation in the Bill and in particular the need for the Minister to consult stakeholders when deciding what method should be used to determine the fee limit. A second expectation to be included would be that the Minister consult the provider in question, higher education stakeholders and other stakeholders relevant to how many credits are attached to the credit-differentiated activity—that is the term used to describe non-traditional modes of teaching, or placement.
I start with amendment 3. The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to decide unilaterally what method to apply to courses in determining the fee method, whether the credit-based method or the fixed method. In the evidence sessions, we heard from Professor Press, the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University, who has done a lot of work in this area. In what was not so much a confession as a revelation, he said that
“the bit I find most difficult to understand is the difference between the credit-based and the fixed-mechanism methods of calculating the fee cap.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 5, Q4.]
In addition, we also helpfully heard from Julie Charge, the deputy chief executive officer at the University of Salford, about their experience of the Office for Students’ short-course trial, as it was the Office for Students that conducted the trail. We heard that that might have been better had it been undertaken by the Department for Education itself. Salford’s experience revealed two significant cohorts of people taking the loan: the 26 to 30-year-olds in one; and the 36 to 40-year-olds in the other. That is valuable data for the Government. I like to think that that will provide behavioural insight into how the opportunity for lifelong learning will apply, because there seems to be a market and a need for such provision among those cohorts. I hope that the Minister will be interested in learning from the trial and implementing it when deciding many of the things that he has the power to do in regulations.
The memorandum from the Department for Education to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that the fixed method will be used only
“for courses which do not easily lend themselves to the credit-based system”.
However, the Bill grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to decide what method should be used, irrespective of whether the fixed method should be used exceptionally. There is a concern here. If it is decided that the credit-based method should be used, it is important that that does not lead to unintended consequences for providers or learners. The Minister would therefore surely accept that there is a real benefit to sector consultation.
The importance and relevance was underlined by the fact that the Russell Group has expressed its support for the amendment, as it believes universities should have autonomy on all decisions relating to the types of courses and provision offered, and whether or not to modularise the courses and the associated credit. I expect the Minister might not want to include sector stakeholder consultation in the Bill, but, if he does not, what assurances can he give the sector that, first, there will be an avenue for sector stakeholders to contribute before the Secretary of State decides on the fee limit to be applied? Secondly, universities will have the ability to express an opinion as to what type of courses
“do not easily lend themselves to the credit-based system”,
and the Secretary of State will take that into account in deciding what method to apply.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The consultation that he refers to sets up an opportunity to debate clause 1. For me there were two key concerns that came out of the evidence sessions on Tuesday. The first was whether the policy would lead to a shift from employers having responsibility for their staff’s learning to employees now being expected to take responsibility. The second was whether that would be attractive enough for institutions to take them on, and whether the concerns about the financial stability of the sector had been considered in the Bill. The evidence sessions showed why it is so important that we have a full consultation on the issues.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is right that we heard quite widely from all the witnesses. Over the last 30 years, there has been a significant fall-off in the provision of adult education and of education or training through employers—we heard that from the CBI and others. There is a real concern about whether the proposal will lead to an individualisation of the responsibility for all training and skills, which would be to the detriment of what is needed for us economically as well as socially. I agree with his point about whether what is being proposed might be a burden in the context of the current education landscape and the financial precarity, which we particularly see in colleges and also in higher education institutions. We will come on to that when we discuss other amendments.
I will come back to the assurances I am seeking from the Minister on the need for consultation. I spoke of two. The final one I want to raise is that there was seemingly some confusion among the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday. These are heavyweight college leaders, who are widely respected across the sector. I am really seeking assurance from the Minister and his team that he himself will reassure the sector on the difference between the two fee limit methods.
I will turn to amendment 5. In the Bill, “credit-differentiated activity” is the term used to describe non-traditional learning activity, such as placements with employers. That is not a term that a lot of people will be familiar with; I am not sure if you, Sir Robert, or others would have been familiar with it ahead of getting involved with this legislation. An obvious example is in hospitals, where placements are a vital part of nursing degrees and other medicine-related courses.
Providers may wish to define future courses with a placement element to them or that include engagement with employers. That is to be welcomed, of course; it is a vital part of the learning experience—the direct, practical experience—that a person can have by being in that place of work and learning very much on the job alongside the theory they may have learned in the classroom. That is a vital part of their training—understanding not just the theory but how that relates in practice to the workspace.
The Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to set down in the regulations the description of the credit-differentiated activity to be undertaken and make provision about the number of credits attached to that type of activity. Given the vast range of areas that such activity could fall in and the number of sectors and bodies that could and, I believe, should be engaged—national health service trusts, other sector-representative bodies involved in course provision and qualification bodies—would it not make sense to ensure they are consulted before the Secretary of State puts a number of credits on the activity?
The amendment also includes consultation with the provider, which is important. Let us take the worst-case scenario. Say that a provider allows a student to undergo a placement during a course year: the Secretary of State provides for that activity to be 20 credits—i.e. 200 hours —but say, in reality, the placement is much more onerous, and the university envisaged that the student would spend 300 hours on placement, or 37.5 hours for eight weeks. That example illustrates that there would be a clear discrepancy. What mechanisms are in place in the legislation to prevent that happening? Would consultation with the provider not be sensible?
We also heard from Simon Ashworth of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers that
“awareness of the LLE is still underdeveloped.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 39, Q78.]
That is backed up by the CBI’s education and skills survey 2022. We heard from Matthew Percival about that, and he explained that the survey revealed that four in five respondents were totally unaware of the plans to introduce the lifelong loan entitlement. We also heard examples on Tuesday of how previous Government initiatives in the skills space have massively underperformed the expectations of Government. I do not mean to criticise that, because some of the initiatives have been very positive, but it demonstrates how difficult it is to get some of those new initiatives up, running and accepted by institutions, and understood by employers and learners. We have seen that with T-levels and accelerated degrees.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is more generous than I am; he touches on one of the crucial parts of this entire debate. For the measures to have the force that we all hope for, providers have to be able to afford to run the courses, and, in the context of independent providers, to do so profitably. The Government have been very good at allotting budgets for projects that never get taken on and never deliver the numbers originally hoped for. There is every prospect, given the evidence that we heard this week, that this measure could fall into the same trap, if the issues raised by my hon. Friend are not addressed. It behoves the Government to ensure that they not only come up with a good idea but make it work for those who are being asked to deliver it.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend understandably has a different perspective on the sector and he has real expertise. With some of the initiatives—I am thinking of T-levels and how the Government sought to remove BTECs—there has been resistance, and a difference between what the Government and colleges and employers believe worked successfully. The introduction of any new approach brings massive challenges. As the Minister knows, the Opposition are in favour of lifelong learning, but it is important that the delivery of it is successful, and there is not a failure from the start. We are at this stage in the Parliament, and there is a lot of work to be done if the measures are to be successful.
One benefit of consultation is engagement. There has been a desire across the sector to have more engagement with the Government, but it has been made difficult. I welcome the Minister to his place; he is a decent individual with expertise and knowledge about the skills sector. There has been such upheaval and turmoil across the ministerial line-up that I think it has made it very difficult. We are five years on from the 2018 Augar report. There needs to be consistency and stability across the ministerial line-up to deliver some of these ideas.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my perception of the role of the local skills improvement plans in this area? From my own experience, it would appear that there is a degree of frustration in those who are seeking to drive the plans when gaining qualitative information from employers. I wonder whether that is indicative of well-intentioned plans not being thought through thoroughly, and not being coherent, intelligible and effective.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend has a lot of experience as a Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough, and understands how important it is, with economic change and new sectors emerging, that training and skills provision is available and co-ordinated. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022; the introduction of local skills improvement plans was seen as a good proposal, but it is about delivery and making it work. It is important to have the right people involved in those plans, who are acting not simply out of self-interest but in the interests of the long-term—10 or 15 years hence. I still believe there is much work to be done on that.
Our amendment would bring all the relevant stakeholders together, simultaneously limiting unintended consequences and engaging the relevant groups with the policy while boosting awareness of the lifelong loan entitlement policy. I think this is a very sensible suggestion, but I guess I would say that.
So, on behalf of the sector, I just ask the Minister to provide some assurances that decisions made under clause 1(4) will not be implemented without sector and representative consultation and approval, and that is what these two amendments seek to ensure.
Mr Perkins
I do not intend to dwell on these two amendments; my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has forcefully set out their purpose. Regarding the consultation, given what we heard in the evidence session, it is important that the sector is engaged. There is a real concern that until there is clarity about a new method of funding further education and skills, which we know will be more expensive for providers to provide, although—quite rightly—it will not be any more expensive for learners to learn, there will be a gap there. So, unless someone steps forward, there is a real danger that an excellent opportunity will be created for learners that they will not actually be able to access in their local area.
On the subject of the definition of a credit, it is important to remind the Committee what we heard in the evidence session. My hon. Friend asked:
“Should the Bill have written into it some sort of definition of what a credit is?”
Ellen Thinnesen from Sunderland College responded:
“My personal and professional opinion is that it should. If we are defining fee limits attached to credits, it is really important to communicate to a student what a credit means. Essentially, a student wants to know a number of things. First, how much is this going to cost me? Secondly, what will I have to expend in effort and energy to complete this module? Thirdly, what will I get for that module and those credits from the institution that I am choosing to go to? So transparency about the relationship of credit to fees, and of credit to module content and what is expected within that, is very important.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 12.]
It was crucial and right that she said that, with her understanding of what motivates learners. It is also important, of course, that future employers understand what those credits mean; other witnesses referred to receiving a handful of certificates, but said that there was no clarity about what those certificates meant.
Alun Francis from Oldham College responded to a question from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw by saying:
“The more important questions will be about the standardisation of the credits…so that learners know what they are getting and paying for. That needs to be absolutely transparent.
It is also important to say that in these technical areas there is a big difference between what learners pay for here and in a traditional degree, because some degrees are positional goods—they are paying for the credential as much as the content—but in these qualifications they are paying for the content. Learners therefore need to be clear that what they are getting is what it says on the tin. The other aspects, I think, we will just get used to.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 13.]
Those are very powerful voices from the sector speaking in support of my hon. Friend’s amendment and if the Minister is not minded to support it, we will need real clarity for the sector as to how the definition of a credit will be assured if it is not in the Bill.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
I thank the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, for tabling his amendment and for his comments on it. He talked about the timing of the consultation and he said that it came out quite late. It came out quite late because we wanted to make sure that we got it right: we were having extensive consultation with the sector and with other stakeholders, as he rightly wants, and we wanted to make sure that we responded carefully. I do not know if he has seen the recent tweet by the vice-chancellor of the Open University, who said that he welcomed the engagement with the Government. There has been an LLE roundtable with previous Ministers and officials. I attended one such meeting only a few days ago on the LLE.
Robert Halfon
Yes, of course. I will come on to deal with some of the hon. Member’s remarks.
Matt Western
It would have been really helpful if the Minister had been in post in March last year, because we might have got to this a lot sooner—that is the point I was making. I am sure that the intention was there in the Government, and of course the Augur report was published five years ago, but I have lost count of how many people I have stood opposite here in this past year. Had this Minister been in place, I am sure we would have had this Bill Committee in the autumn of last year.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Member is very kind, as always. I cannot speak for the past; I can just speak for the present and the future. My intention is to get this Bill right, which is why this Bill Committee is so important.
The hon. Member opened by saying that there was some confusion about the fixed-rate method and modules and credits. He mentioned Professor Malcolm Press. Universities UK has strongly welcomed the lifelong loan entitlement; I noted that point on Second Reading.
I will just clarify, for the benefit of the Committee, that the Government intend for all courses offered under the LLE to use the new credit-based system for calculating fee limits. That includes longer programmes, such as three-year degrees, as well as short courses or modules, regardless of whether they are studied on a full-time, part-time or accelerated basis.
There may be some courses that are more suited to annual fee limits than credit-based fee limits, for example postgraduate certificates of education or first degrees in nursing. Where that is the case, the intention is that the Government will set fee limits using a consistent rate of 120 credits per year. That includes for Oxbridge, where there is no credit system for degrees; there will be a default credit system for those universities.
The Government intend to retain the ability to set fee limits using the current yearly fee system as well as the new credit-based system, but would use this ability only by exception. These exceptions will be set out via regulations, using the affirmative procedure.
Let me go through the amendments in a little more detail. They focus on the Government consulting with stakeholders regarding the fee limit method and credit-differentiated activities. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to gather input to inform policy development and believe it is absolutely critical that we continue to engage with stakeholders all the way through. I mentioned the vice-chancellor of the Open University. He said:
“The Lifelong Loan Entitlement... has the potential to enable people at any stage of their working lives to improve their knowledge and skills and drive productivity and growth.”
The Government’s consultation on the lifelong loan entitlement included a question specifically on the issue suggested by amendment 5—whether any courses should be on the per academic year, or fixed, method of funding. We intend for all courses under the LLE to use the new credit-based method for calculating fee limits.
We understand, following the consultation and engagement with the sector, that there may be some courses that would be more suited to annual fee limits, such as nursing. In those cases, as I have said, the Government will set fee limits using a consistent rate of 120 credits per year for full-time courses. That will create parity with the current yearly fee system, but via a credit-based mechanism.
On amendment 3, I will provide some additional detail on credit-differentiated activities. A credit-differentiated activity is intended to be a period of study or other activity that has a different fee limit rate to another period of study within the same year—for example, a year containing substantial periods of taught study and time abroad. Credit-differentiated activities make it possible to set fee limits on sandwich placements and overseas study in a more flexible way.
Currently, placements and overseas study have a reduced fee limit rate, but that reduced rate can only be applied to a full year at a time. We are trying to make it possible to fee cap shorter periods of mobility in the year that they actually take place. Where I disagree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is that an explicit requirement to consult on the detail of credit-differentiated activities is not necessary and potentially burdensome.
Mr Perkins
If I have understood correctly, the Minister is effectively saying that what makes up a credit is up to the providers. They can decide what constitutes a credit, 10 credits or whatever else. Given the feedback we heard from Ellen Thinnesen and Mr Francis, and given the reservations we heard from those in the sector that there is a danger this might be burdensome and costly for them, how will the Government ensure that providers will not stretch what is worth 10 credits or a credit? How can we ensure that there is quality within this?
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he knows, a credit is a unit of learning time. We are using the standardised system that exists already, but breaking it down into modules. As I said, the maximum will be 120 credits per year. In terms of the modules, there will be a minimum of 30 credits. If providers want to charge for more credits, that is up to them, but the student will not pay for those extra credits that they charge for. We are just breaking down the existing system to ensure that we can introduce modular and flexible learning.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for his comments. However, we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The definition of credit must follow sector-recognised standards.”
This amendment would ensure there is a sector-recognised, standard definition of credit, consistent with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Higher Education Credit Framework.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 9, in clause 1, page 4, line 33, after “course” insert
“as specified in a standardised transcript.”
This amendment would ensure that there is consistency amongst the academic record of students wishing to transfer between providers through a standardised transcript.
Matt Western
The amendments seek to incorporate two elements into the Bill. The first would ensure that the definition of a “credit” is aligned with sector-recognised standards, and the second would ensure that the definition of a “transfer case” includes reference to the need for a standardised transcript. This is particularly important for ensuring consistency and quality.
Let me start with amendment 4. The sector has clearly done a huge amount of work in this space, and we heard from Professor Sue Rigby of Bath Spa University, who was responsible for rewriting the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s credit framework alongside Ellen Thinnesen of Sunderland College, who was an advisory member for the development of the QAA’s quality code for higher education. Ellen made it very clear in her evidence that being precise on the face of the Bill about what a credit is would be a really important step. Interestingly, she said that it would provide clarity about the relationship between credits, fees and module content. As I said in my opening remarks, the concept of a credit—both as a term and as a currency—is alien to the wider public, which is an issue. The public’s understanding about what a T-level is and its value is not well appreciated, which, sadly, may devalue it in the eyes of employers or others. That is why we believe that the definition of credit should be on the face of the Bill.
The term is certainly understood by the sector, with one credit equating to 10 notional hours of learning. The minimum proposed 30-unit course available to a student benefiting from their LLE would therefore equate to 300 hours of notional learning. Without a clear commitment to a sector-recognised definition of credit on the face of the Bill, what is to stop the Government amending the value of a credit without any proper scrutiny? I was pleased to see reference to credit in the explanatory notes, which define one credit as representing 10 hours of notional learning. Elsewhere, this understanding or valuation of a credit is found in Ofqual’s conditions of registration and the Office for Students’ sector-recognised standards, as well as in the QAA’s higher education credit framework.
I think it is the sector’s definition to own. In not making it clear on the face of the Bill, the inevitable concern is that Ministers may well step in and start amending the value of a credit, which has implications for the fee cap that providers are able to charge. What assurances can the Minister give us that a credit is to be aligned with sector-recognised standards?
Of course, the benefit of our amendment is that it would provide flexibility: should the sector decide to amend its definition of a credit, that would be updated in the Bill. Our amendment would simply enshrine the autonomy of providers against potential interference by the Government, and I think most of us would say that that is a very healthy place to be, irrespective of where we sit in the Chamber. The context is the creeping Government interference that we have seen within the Office for Students, so it is really important that the definition of a credit is transparent and owned by the sector.
On amendment 9, I thank the Minister for publishing the consultation ahead of Report, following cross-party representations on Second Reading from me, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The publication of that report has invariably improved the quality of debate. The amendment is inspired by the Government’s own commitment, in their response, to introduce the requirement for providers to give standardised transcripts to learners on completion of their modules. That is a good thing. During the evidence session, we heard several concerns about how transfer cases would work. Julie Charge, for example, raised concerns about how they would work in practice and who would be the awarding body. That is certainly not clear.
We also heard from Rachel Sandby-Thomas, who explained that in transfer cases the providers involved currently have a good relationship. It is really important for there to be trust and an appreciation of the values and standards of the institution that is transferring out as well as an appraisal of the relative standards. It will take time for providers to build up such relationships when, in theory, students will be able to transfer from any provider to another. That is why the issue is so important. A standardised academic transcript would give value and credit to the qualifications achieved by a learner.
Andy McDonald
Could I take my hon. Friend back a step to the level of requirement on providers to settle a standardised script? One of my local colleges has got in touch to say that although it welcomes the idea, it understands that there are no plans to make it a firm requirement of higher education providers. Instead, they will be encouraged only to consider standardised transcripts. Does that accord with my hon. Friend’s understanding or is there something stronger in the Bill that we have not seen?
Matt Western
It is interesting to hear the voice of one of my hon. Friend’s local colleges in Middlesborough. The need for standardisation is at the heart of the issue; as I say, where this is working currently there is an existing relationship between education providers—whether colleges or higher education institutions—when it comes to the person who may be transferring out or in and what they will have attained by arriving at the other institution. That is really important.
We have to establish a currency or there will not be trust between the institutions when it comes to taking people on—they might not appreciate the value or standard that the learner may have previously achieved. It will take time for providers to build up these relationships and that is why standardised academic transcripts are important.
Mr Perkins
In the evidence session, we heard the Minister at pains to encourage our witnesses to say that as a result of the new approach there might be greater collaboration between the further and higher education sectors. We all recognise that that would be a good thing, and my hon. Friend and I have seen good examples of that. Does amendment 9 not give the opportunity for that collaboration to be far more consistent than it currently is? If someone has clarity about what they are getting at every stage, about the transfer and about where the responsibilities lie in the learning, it is much easier for those partnerships to form.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that these relationships form—and they are relationships of trust, really. That is why consistency and a standardised approach are really important to give substance to that trust and relationship.
We also heard from Coventry University, which is very much at the vanguard of modular study. We heard from Dr Norton, who was concerned about how stackability might actually work in practice. She was keen to ensure that credits are widely recognised and that there is a currency across the sector. She suggested that standardised transcripts would provide the absolute clarity and brand recognition—perhaps acceptance—that are needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can explain a bit more about what a standardised transcript looks like, what it could include and, importantly, what value it will hold.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments. The standardised transcript, which is important, will be provided at the end of a module. It provides a clear record of the learner’s study in a recognisable format. It is something that courses already have in their existing certificates.
There are already qualifications for large courses, and employers know that. The standardised transcript will be given on the completion of the student’s module. It is intended to be a requirement of the regulations for loan funding purposes, but it does not necessarily need to be referred to in relation to fee limits.
Amendment 4 would require the definition of credit to align with sector-recognised standards. I emphasise that the Government fully understand the importance of that. We have introduced a definition of credit on the face of the Bill in proposed new paragraph 1A, which defines credits as units used to signify the total amount of learning time that a student would ordinarily be expected to spend in order to complete a course or part of a course. That relates to the hon. Gentleman’s question. As he said, it aligns with the definitions held by the Office for Students and Ofqual.
The Bill does not introduce a power further to define credits in regulations. However, regulations will set out that, for a course or module to be treated as credit-bearing, each credit must be equal to 10 learning hours. That mirrors existing sector practice. The Government do not intend to change regulations on the number of learning hours in a credit unless standards in the sector change. Learning hours are, and should continue to be, based on sector-led standards. I can give an assurance that regulations on learning hours will follow the affirmative resolution procedure so that Parliament will always get an opportunity to debate and formally approve any changes to regulations. As such, the amendment is not necessary.
Let me explain that a bit further. If learning hours are put into secondary legislation, rather than primary, providers that use a different number of learning hours per credit will simply have their courses treated as non-credit bearing, rather than being considered in breach of the fee limit rules as a whole. The Office for Students would have the ability to take action against the provider from a quality and standards standpoint if it deems that necessary, but the provider would not face additional consequences for breaching fee limits rules. As I say, regulations on learning hours will have to follow the affirmative resolution procedure, so Parliament will always get the chance to debate and formally approve any such number of hours before a law is made or changed.
On amendment 9, the Government fully intend to support transcripts for modules of courses. Although we encourage their use as good practice to support students for all level 4 to 6 study, we are not making transcripts mandatory for full courses. That is because modules are a novel concept in terms of designation for student finance, and do not have the fully established standards that exist for full courses. By providing transcripts for modules, the lifelong loan entitlement will enable credit transfer and boost labour market currency, allowing students to make full use of their academic achievements to progress.
Since transcripts are not mandatory for full courses, it would not be appropriate to reference them in primary legislation in the context of both courses and modules. I reiterate that employers know what courses are. Most courses come with a qualification of some kind. For those reasons, the Government will resist the amendments.
Matt Western
I hear what the Minister has said. I would like to believe the point about what might happen with the credit definition, and I appreciate that it is referenced elsewhere, but it would still be healthy to have it defined in the Bill.
On the standardised transcript issue, I certainly understand the problem with what he was describing as a full course as opposed to a module. A full course is understood, because there is a defined quantification and qualification on what has been studied. That is well understood. The issue is that, with modules, it will be much less understood.
The full course may typically be undertaken at or provided by one institution; we are talking about the movement of people over time or place, between institutions. Some standardised transcript would be in everyone’s interests, whether that is the employer, in understanding what someone has attained, the incoming institution, or, most certainly, the learner.
For those reasons, we will push both amendment 4 and amendment 9 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 3, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations made under this paragraph must provide for the default number of credits to be no more than 10 credits.”.
A probing amendment to ascertain the extent to which the Government is prepared to extend the lifelong learning entitlement to modules worth 10 credits.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 1, page 3, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations made under this paragraph must provide for the default number of credits to be no more than 20 credits.”.
A probing amendment to ascertain the extent to which the Government is prepared to extend the lifelong learning entitlement to modules worth 20 credits.
Matt Western
It might be disappointing that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown cannot be with us today, but it is probably in all our interests that he did not come in, given what he described to me earlier. However, he would have been keen to speak to amendment 2, tabled in his name. In particular, I think he would have had real validity in moving the amendment, given his personal expertise and experience of having delivered courses—that is why he believed that it was important to include the amendment in the Bill.
We are trying to understand the Government’s justification for choosing the minimum number of credits available, which they have set at 30. On the face of it, 30 may appear to be an arbitrary figure. The amendments are not intended to represent our specific view on whether the minimum should be 20 credits or 10 credits; they are very much intended to open a debate on the benefit of having smaller credit blocks available to learners and encourage a culture of bitesize learning.
In the evidence we had on Tuesday, Professor Edward Peck of Nottingham Trent University felt that the 30-credit minimum hit the balance between not overwhelming the Student Loans Company and meeting the needs of learning. On this side of the House, we want to ensure that the balance has been struck at the right point. I appreciatethat the Augar review recommended that the minimum should be set at 30 credits for much the same reasons given by Professor Peck who, of course, was on the panel working alongside Sir Philip Augar. I understand that position.
However, we have also received evidence that 30 credits may still be too high a minimum. For example, I was particularly struck by the view of ResPublica in its submitted written evidence, which expressed concern about the 30-credit minimum. It noted that
“the evidence strongly suggests that learners and employers value shorter courses, and would therefore advocate a 10 credit minimum threshold”,
which is the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown wished to speak to.
Interestingly, as it happens, I think we can learn a lot from the Canadians, but the Canadian Government offer modular lifelong learning on a micro-credential level, offering 10-credit unit courses. Why are they able to set the minimum at a rate three times lower than our minimum? Does the Minister think that the Student Loans Company would be really overstretched in delivering that, or are there other reasons?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In this place, we often talk about the cost of learning as if the major cost to an employer is paying for the training. Of course, one of the other costs to an employer is the amount of time that an employee is out of the workplace in the learning institution. That is a very real consideration for many employers. For precisely that reason, a shorter-form commitment is often very attractive to employers, but it might enable their employee to develop skills that will either help them in their current job or help them into their next job. Particularly given that as a country, we are way below the OECD average in the amount that employers spend on training their staff, anything that can be done to make it more affordable for employers to let their employees have time away from work should be encouraged. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Matt Western
It may come as no surprise that I often do agree with my hon. Friend. He genuinely has insight into and expertise in this sector.
I have a particular concern from not only the evidence that we heard from Matthew Percival of the CBI but my anecdotal experience of talking to businesses in my constituency, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chamber of commerce and others. There is a desire to upskill and improve the training provided to employees, but small and medium-sized enterprises face a particular challenge in doing so. There is a barrier to their taking up opportunities because the size of the course, the commitment and the financial obligations are just too much.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendments. Let me respond first to how they are worded before I address the specific issue of the 30 credits. Amendments 2 and 6 have been worded to limit the default credit value to 10 and 20 credits respectively. I completely get that the intention is to probe the extent to which the Government are prepared to loan-fund modules of fewer than 30 credits under the LLE, but the amendments would not achieve that end because that is not what the default credit values in the Bill relate to.
It is worth clarifying the purpose of the default credit value: it is intended to allow fee limits to be set on full courses if they are not credit-bearing or the course is more suited to annual fee limits than credit-based fee limits. As mentioned, such courses may include some degree programmes at Oxford and Cambridge, and other courses such as nursing. For those types of courses, the fee limit will be calculated using a default number of credits instead of any provider-assigned credits. The default values will be set at 120 credits a year for full-time courses, which aligns with the sector-recognised standard number of credits in a full year.
The default credit values are there to provide a credit value for non-credit-bearing full courses only. They will not apply to modules. As all modules under the LLE will be credit bearing, modules will always have the fee limit calculated using the actual provider-assigned number of credits, not a default number of credits.
The Government have been clear that the modules must have a minimum size of 30 credits for funding purposes. We believe this is a suitable level to attract fees and maintenance loans as it represents a substantial-enough package of learning. It is based on significant consultation with stakeholders and is much smaller and more flexible for training, retraining and upskilling opportunities than the current one-academic-year minimum-size offer.
As mentioned, modules of a smaller size can also be funded—provided that they are bundled together in a single entry from a parent course to meet the 30 credits—to allow sufficient flexibility for retraining purposes. This will mean that funding will be available for a 20-credit module and a 10-credit module of the same course combined.
The hon. Gentleman cited the Augar report. Philip Augar is the key architect of this reform, alongside the former shadow spokesman for skills and universities, Gordon Marsden, who often spoke about lifelong learning. The Augar report is clear that a 30-hour credit represents a
“a significant amount of teaching and learning, and is an appropriate minimum for upskilling or reskilling.”
Mr Perkins
Will the Minister clarify for the Committee and for others listening to our proceedings how much loan a student who took on 30 credits would need?
Robert Halfon
Under the current loan system, the loan would be divided up in proportion to the 30 credits that the student was taking. It would depend on whether the credit is charged at £77 or £60, which would depend on whether the provider had a teaching excellence framework or an access and participation plan. If the credit was charged at £77, it would be £77 times the 30 credits. It would then be up to the student to decide whether they wanted to do the course.
To return to amendment 2, to cap all default values at 10 credits would make them unfit for purpose, as a full-time year is 120 credits. With that in mind, the Government cannot support the amendment.
Matt Western
I hear what the Minister says but am disappointed. I would have liked him to say that, within a year or two of the scheme being in operation, this idea might be up for review. We do buy into lifelong learning, and the Minister is right in what he says about Gordon Marsden, a former colleague, and the work done by the Augar review. However, although the intent is right, we need to consider the delivery and maximising the opportunity, which is why we think there is a real opportunity for the Government, at a certain point, to review the merit in lowering the default so that the minimum is not 30 bundled credits.
There is a huge need to address this country’s training and skills gap, and particularly to be more supportive of small businesses such as those represented by the Federation of Small Businesses, to help them with the training of their staff. We will not push the amendment to a vote, but I ask the Minister to reflect further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 1, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
“(6) In determining the maximum number of credits for a course year, the Secretary of State must—
(a) have regard to the impact on the variety of courses on offer from providers,
(b) prepare and publish an equality impact assessment, and
(c) have regard to the impact on student numbers.”
This amendment would ensure that in setting the maximum cap of credits per course year, the Secretary of State takes a variety of steps to ensure there are no unintended consequences of setting the cap at a certain level.
The amendment relates to maximum credit cap considerations and aims to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the wide variety of courses on offer, the impact on student numbers and the need to publish an equality impact assessment when determining the maximum number of credits for a course year. I will take each of those in turn.
The paragraph on the impact on the variety of courses on offer will ensure that when the Secretary of State decides on the maximum number of credits for a course year, they do so in a way that does not unintentionally choke off the provision of certain courses that do not fit the traditional 120-credit structure. I am thinking mainly of accelerated degrees, which often equate to 180 credits and require the learner to spend more notional learning time to complete their degree in just two years instead of three.
As I have said, the uptake of accelerated degrees has perhaps not been as high as desired or met the Government’s ambition. That is not to say that the offer of accelerated degrees does not have potential, but it has certainly not been as successful as we or the Government would have hoped. For such degrees, a fee capped at a maximum of 120 credits a year would make it financially unsustainable for providers to continue to run courses and they would no longer be offered.
Not a huge number of people have taken up accelerated degrees. Perhaps the Minister has better data than I do, but I think that, nationally, we are in the five digits—maybe the 10,000s or 12,000s. It is not a great number, but it is a good and important offer that perhaps requires further development. It works for a particular population of students who, depending on their personal circumstances, or perhaps their employer, see the advantage of getting through a degree in a shorter period.
If the Secretary of State was required to have regard to the need to protect provision, it would prevent any unintended consequences from arising from ministerial decision making. That is another good reason why we think consultation is so important; I refer back to my previous amendments, which related to involving stakeholders across the piece in the process.
On the point about publishing an equality and impact assessment, if the setting of the maximum number of credits for a course year were to have an impact on the provision and availability of courses, that in turn would inevitably have an impact on student choice. That is a concern, and we absolutely want to ensure that it does not happen.
Students are not as homogenous a group as they are sometimes portrayed; people arrive into education at all stages of life, with different demands and different needs. We need to ensure that there are no barriers to their pursuing higher education as they need and wish to, whether that is for their careers or because their life circumstances have changed.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the lifetime nature of study. There is some confusion: I do not know whether he can assist me on this, but apparently the loans will be made available up to the age of 60. That is revealed in the consultation. On the same page, however, it also states that a reduced rate maintenance loan will continue to be available for those over 60. Does that mean that over-60s can continue to receive the funding, or is it only for those who started before the age of 60? I am somewhat confused. Can my hon. Friend clarify? Perhaps the Minister will when he sums up.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend makes an important and pressing point, which is perhaps more pressing to certain of us than others—
Matt Western
In all seriousness, the issue was discussed at the evidence sessions on Tuesday and there seems to be an anomaly. I am sure that the Minister will want to address that.
Listening to the witnesses the other day, I think there was some concession. If we have rising pension thresholds and we want to re-involve a sector of our population that has withdrawn from employment and the economy —we heard in the last few days about the Government’s intention regarding returnerships—people need to be able to access this provision; I am also thinking of the WASPI women. People suddenly find that they do not have the incomes they need to sustain themselves. The sorts of work they previously were involved in might no longer be open to them, and they might need to retrain. Age 60 is an arbitrary guillotine, and it is not necessarily appropriate. I very much hope that the Minister will clarify the issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and the rest of us. Perhaps he might reflect on the economic needs, as well as the social needs, that such a change would meet.
It is important that Ministers should be confident that there will be no disproportionate effect on certain groups of students, some of whom we have mentioned, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am thinking in particular of those mentioned in the evidence sessions—those with particular responsibilities, financial challenges, social and domestic challenges, caring responsibilities and so on. In the evidence sessions, I was pleased to hear from Professor Sue Rigby from Bath Spa University, who endorses the plan to ensure a risk analysis of the unintended consequences for students.
Finally, I believe there is a need to have regard for the impact on student numbers. I was intrigued to hear the suggestion from Sir Philip Augar, whom I respect greatly. He suggested that, with a declining population rate, “forward-thinking institutions” may see this route as a viable one to attract more students. A pessimist might say that, given a declining post-18 population rate post 2030, some institutions may see this route as a way to boost their declining student numbers. Although it might seem like a problem for the future, that future does not seem that far away—particularly in terms of electoral cycles. It might not be a problem that we envisage in the immediate short term, but modular study surely should not be seen simply as an avenue through which providers can boost student numbers, being purely driven by their own financial interests.
Sir David Bell of the University of Sunderland raised the prospect of the learner being overwhelmed by choice and he has a very real point. The choice on offer should always be a choice in the learner’s interest, and the Secretary of State would be wise to have due regard for how student numbers might be impacted in setting the maximum number of credits.
Amendment 11 seeks to avoid the unintended consequences of the 120 limit, which is a particular issue for accelerated learning courses, which give an offer to a particular population for whom getting through a qualification in a shorter period of time is really vital, or perhaps vital for the organisation that employs them. That is why we think amendment 11 should be accepted.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. On his question about the maintenance loan, I confirm that the LLE tuition loans will be available up to the age of 60. We believe that is fair to students and fair to the taxpayer. Currently, just over 3,000 people—from memory, it might be 3,500 people—aged 60 take up student loans. However, learners near retirement or in retirement are likely to repay a very small proportion of their loan and their maintenance support will be subject to taper from the age of 60. I think that is what the statement refers to, but of course I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with clarification if he would like.
I can confirm that the setting of the maximum credits per course year will be based on robust analysis of any impact on learners and providers. More importantly, I can confirm that there is absolutely an opportunity for the sector to provide feedback on the proposed maximum values before regulations are laid. I can also give the assurance that regulations on maximum credits will have to follow the affirmative resolution procedure, so that Parliament will always get the chance to debate and approve formally any maximum credit values before the law is made or changed.
The regulations will cap the number of credits that providers can charge for within a given course year and for the course overall. That is to prevent providers from adding unnecessary credits to courses in order to raise tuition fees. The cap ensures value for money for the student and the taxpayer. The fee limits will remain aligned with the current rates, based on standard practice. A certificate of higher education will be capped at 120 credits; a diploma of higher education will be capped at 240 credits.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s point about the accelerated degrees, we intend all courses offered under LLE to be used under the credit-based method. That includes accelerated courses. The limit on credits will be set at 180 a year. Providers can offer more credits than the maximum, but cannot charge for them. That is in line with the current system, where providers offering the usual number of credits have the same annual fee limit as those offering more for the same type of qualification.
The Government are already factoring in the impact of these reforms on students and providers. That is why we resist the amendment.
Matt Western
I appreciate what the Minister says. It is encouraging to hear that those learners and the accelerated courses will be protected. However, we would like this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill, so we will put it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 View all Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 March 2023 - (23 Mar 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) When making regulations under paragraph 1B, 1C or 1F, the Secretary of State must have regard to the additional costs associated with the delivery of the course.”
This amendment would ensure that when exercising the powers granted in this Bill, the Secretary of State has regard to the additional costs associated with the delivery of modular study.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 1, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) When making regulations under paragraph 1B, 1C or 1F, the Secretary of State must have regard to the financial sustainability of providers.”
This amendment would ensure that when exercising the powers granted in this Bill, the Secretary of State has regard to the financial sustainability of providers.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Cummins, and to welcome everyone back for this second sitting of the day. We had a constructive discussion on our various amendments under clause 1 this morning. We continue now with amendments 7 and 8, which have rightly been grouped together as they address a pretty thorny issue: financial sustainability. The amendments set out that in exercising their powers under clause 1, the Secretary of State should first have due regard to the additional costs associated with delivery and secondly look at financial sustainability in the round.
On the additional costs associated with the delivery of modular learning, we heard collectively a plethora of evidence from our witnesses during Tuesday’s sitting about how the impact of lifelong learning might affect providers. Indeed, when it comes to higher education providers, Professor Press from Manchester Metropolitan University made it clear that there were difficulties for institutions in the “mechanics” of the delivery of lifelong learning, partly due to the additional cost of delivery when moving from a full year or full three years of a course to a module. Quite understandably, that will introduce an additional cost burden, whether that be costs of onboarding or administrative processing. Worryingly, given the take-up for lifelong learning is so uncertain—the pilot programme did not attract high numbers at all—Professor Press found it difficult to predict what precisely the costs would be. That is concerning.
It is important that we have seen that uncertainty, seen what it might mean and seen the additional costs. There has been very low take-up of the apprenticeship levy, T-levels and accelerated learning. Accelerated learning and the apprenticeship levy certainly have real merits, but they can bring an additional cost burden, and a restructuring or reshaping of courses for institutions. That means more financial pressure on institutions when things are already difficult—as I am sure, Mrs Cummins, you will be aware, given that you have a university on your doorstep.
The effect may be far worse for colleges, as acknowledged by Liz Bromley of Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group and David Hughes of the Association of Colleges. Colleges clearly have already been facing a dire financial settlement over the past 13 years—a point that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield will want to build on and explore thoroughly in his comments, given his expertise in and knowledge of the sector. Certainly, almost all the witnesses representing the further education sector whom we heard from on Tuesday called for an injection of cash—presumably, to combat a gradual decline in the real-terms funding settlement for further education colleges. Lecturer pay, workload, staff retention, the administrative burden and regulatory costs were all cited as reasons why modular provision in the form of lifelong learning may hit roadblocks in the years ahead. The recent decision to take the further education sector into the public sector, denying colleges the ability to borrow and limiting their access to risk capital, will also dampen the supply of new course provision.
In the impact assessment as published, there is an estimated cost of £211,000 for all providers to familiarise themselves with lifelong learning, although it is worth pointing out that the Russell Group thinks that that is a large underestimation. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the figure of £211,000 was arrived at. When we look at how many institutions we have, whether they be further education colleges or higher education institutions, that figure probably works out at about 300 quid each. I am sure the Minister can explain how the figure was arrived at and, indeed, what the approximate cost will be for those institutions, but even that rough calculation suggests that the cost is massively understated by the Government in their impact assessment. That is concerning, because we all want to start this scheme on solid ground and ensure that it is being approached correctly and has the best chance of delivery and success. That example suggests that it has not been accurately thought out, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Not only does the financial capacity of the sector affect the provision of courses; it also risks the financial sustainability of the whole sector. On Tuesday we heard from Dr Norton of Coventry University, who helpfully demonstrated that higher education providers work on a five-year forecasting model, which is made harder if students are opting for modular study over a several-years-long course. At a time when over one in three higher education providers are reporting a deficit, the real-terms value of tuition fees has crumbled to below £6,750—my understanding is that it is probably more like £6,400—and the Government’s own policy impact assessment for the Bill admits that the lifelong learning entitlement
“could result in providers having less financial certainty”,
the concern is that this mammoth reform may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. There is a real concern that it could bring down institutions in the sector. As of today, I am not entirely sure of the level of Government concern at that prospect. I hope the Minister will reassure us with his perspective of financial sustain-ability versus precarity of institutions in the sector—higher education and further education colleges alike.
This skeletal Bill introduces sweeping reforms to the way in which the student finance model works, and I would hope that the Minister would be totally assured that the reforms will pose as little risk as possible to institutional financial sustainability. That is why I was so concerned to read what I did in the impact assessment. What stress tests have the Department conducted ahead of implementation to ensure the sector can cope with the changes introduced in the Bill? What additional financial support, if any, does the Minister intend to provide to higher education providers and colleges seeking to implement modular study, given the limited financial capacity of the sector?
The amendments are important in establishing what risk there is to the wider tertiary education sector, and in ensuring sustainability. It cannot be logical that the costs per student unit will remain the same for modular learning provision. There will be a significant increase in the cost burden to institutions through the delivery of courses, but also in the administration and onboarding of students, and in managing departing students, and all the data needs around those changes. As we heard in our witness sessions, we have not even got to the wraparound support that students may require.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend reflected particularly on the evidence from Professor Rigby in the evidence session? She went into quite some detail about the administrative costs and the regulatory burdens of the modular approach, and the costs that that approach is likely to add to providers. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the result of those administrative burdens might be that, without the additional funds he is asking for, colleges will find these courses unsustainable to run, and we will not get the amount of provision that we all want to see?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is right to cite the evidence of Professor Rigby, and we heard from others on this point. There is a very real risk here, and none of us should underestimate that. We support the Government and the purpose of a lifelong learning entitlement—there is a need for it, in society, and also economically—so it is important that provisions are brought in, but they should succeed, and the delivery is really important in that regard.
To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, an interesting parallel is degree apprenticeships. We see real interest in them, but there are significant costs associated with their provision, including the regulatory burden, of which my hon. Friend will be more than aware. Involving employers in designing those courses and so on is intensive for an educational institution. The implementation—getting the course up and running—is a significant process.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The salaries of further education providers and lecturers is far less than school teachers and university providers. I asked one of the witnesses in the evidence session whether the lack of the injection of cash mentioned by a previous witness would make these measures unsustainable. There is a problem with recruitment and retention, and many people can get better money out there actually doing vocational jobs, but we need these people to teach others vocational skills such as construction and hospitality. We already know that there is a skills shortage. Why are we not looking to address those particular issues, so that we can get our economy up and running? We support this legislation, but we have to hope that the finances are appropriated in the right places.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is totally right that one of the huge issues in the sector is the paucity of remuneration to further education college lecturers and staff. While going around the country, I have heard lots of anecdotal evidence about how difficult it is to recruit good staff. We clearly want the best, most inspiring people to deliver and impart information through their teaching. Whether it be in pure vocational education or in academic subjects, we want the best people, with expertise and talent, who can really inspire others to get into that subject and to succeed.
I hear, from talking to establishments around the country, that there is a huge remuneration or salary disadvantage—a difference between what people can earn vocationally in roles versus what they earn as lecturers in colleges. What I am hearing indicates that there is a 40% difference in pay between delivering a vocational role and teaching. That is really to the detriment of the next generation, and it is why we do not have the number of people coming into teaching as we should have across the board. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s points, which highlight another immense challenge for the sector in the financial burden; the remuneration would ideally be greater.
Amendments 7 and 8 identify a real pressure point for the sector, in terms of the burden from this Bill. As I evidenced through the degree apprenticeships, institutions have to bear additional costs to deliver good-quality courses, but the yield—the cost cover—is not there. It is actually to the cost of the institution to provide them; it is the right thing to do, but it is coming at great cost to them to do that. With that, I will end my remarks.
Mr Perkins
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I rise to speak to my hon. Friend’s amendments. I think that he has already made the case well, but there are a few points that I would like to add, particularly regarding the financial sustainability of further education colleges and independent learning providers.
The amendments absolutely speak to the heart of our reservations about the approach being taken. They are quite modest in their scope, but given the evidence that we heard in the evidence sessions, which was touched on in earlier discussions on other amendments, they do, as I say, cut to the heart of our concerns. Amendment 7 asks the Secretary of State to have regard for additional costs associated with the delivery of the course, and amendment 8 asks the Secretary of State to have regard to the financial sustainability of providers.
I will speak to amendment 7 first. In the evidence session, David Hughes explained that colleges,
“do not have any of what the private sector might call risk capital”.––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 50, Q105.]
Given that FE college funding has fallen by 27% in real terms between 2010 and 2019, according to the House of Commons Library, and given the increasing financial pressures—with the booming energy prices and wage inflation all affecting colleges too—the financial picture for many of our colleges, crucial as they are, is very difficult indeed.
For that reason, David Hughes told us that the risk appetite of colleges for putting on courses that they do not know that anyone will study is likely to be pretty limited and restrained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, with colleges now being inside the public sector and therefore unable to seek private-sector borrowing, and being forced to run balanced budgets, colleges will just not be able to run courses that they cannot be pretty certain will have learners taking them.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the difficult landscape that FE colleges find themselves in, but is he as surprised as I was to hear that Eton College was proposing to enter into the fray across the country—my own constituency included, notwithstanding that there was an oversupply in the sector already—thereby adding to the difficulties and undermining existing colleges? Is that not exactly the wrong way to go when the landscape is already so difficult?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not specifically aware of the intended provision that he raised but, absolutely, the strength of his oratory on the issues facing further education colleges is absolutely right, and I would be very interested to learn more about what it is that Eton College believes it can offer that is not currently being provided.
Returning to the point I was making, there is a real need for somebody to step in and provide the certainty of funding that might allow more courses to be put on. Realistically, this legislation will not even come into force until 2025, so it will fall on the next Government to make this work, not the current Government, with all their best intentions. It will fall on the next Government to ensure that our constituents and learners across the country can actually take advantage of what is being offered.
Over the course of the 13 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have become used to quizzing Ministers on pieces of legislation: “How is it going to work? What are you going to do?” This is one of those situations where the Minister is laying out what he anticipates might happen with the legislation, but all these questions will probably be for his successor. He may still be the Minister—no one knows the outcome of a future election.
However, as His Majesty’s Opposition, as a responsible Opposition, we have to think carefully about the fact that we might inherit this legislation and inherit responsibility for ensuring that these courses are available, that colleges and independent learning providers are sustainable, and that this provision is available to our constituents. It is therefore important for the Minister to confirm at this stage, given the recent Budget, whether any provision has put in place to recognise the additional costs for FE colleges or independent learning providers in delivering a more modular form of learning.
As we heard in evidence—I will expand on that in a moment—additional administrative and cost burdens will be placed on colleges. Will money be put aside to ensure that they are able to run these courses sustainably? If it is not the Department for Education or the Minister that will be ensuring additional funds, will it fall on local mayors to provide financial reassurance? Might the need for this kind of provision appear in local skills improvement plan? There would then be an expectation that a Metro Mayor would provide additional financial reassurance.
If not, I fear that this scheme will end up being something that largely happens in the private sector, where there is maybe a bit more risk appetite, and only with employers who can provide certainty about the economies of scale by placing several learners on courses. If a particular employer says, “Well, I want seven of my staff to do a specific course,” then someone might run one on that basis. But we are looking for colleges or independent providers to pre-emptively offer a course and see who signs up for it, so all these financial implications will only add to the potential nervousness around that. We heard several witnesses say that this measure has the potential to be a game changer for colleges, but only if they can afford to take the risk. This amendment, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, offers some potential for the Government to illustrate that that risk has been seriously considered.
It will be useful for the Committee if I specify some of the additional costs that learning providers will face. We know that one of the Bill’s objectives is that someone who studies in this kind of modular way should not pay any more than they would have done had they studied in what you might call the usual way on a short-term, full-time course. Providers are saying that delivering in this new way will be more expensive, so there is a gap. Someone has to fill that gap, and it will either be some form of Government or the provider themselves. If it is going to be the providers, they will have to think carefully about whether that will be affordable.
If we think, for example, about the recruitment costs for any college that takes on lecturers—advertising a position, going through the interviews, all the administrative costs with collating CVs and going through and meeting to discuss those CVs—and all those things that might normally happen in advance of a three-year university degree, with all the revenues that will come in from that, all those costs still apply. However, it might be that those costs apply to someone who will actually be working for a short length of time and with far less revenue coming into the learning provider, and the barriers to recruitment will arguably grow.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
It is an honour to serve under you, Mrs Cummins. I am supportive of the sentiment behind these amendments and recognise the importance of considering the impacts on providers. The Government have been fully mindful of the financial sustainability of providers during the development of the LLE, particularly of FE colleges. The Government are also mindful of the additional costs that providers may incur when offering shorter modular provision at large scale.
We engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to gather input, to inform policy development and to build awareness of the LLE. We are grateful to the stakeholders that have engaged with the Department on the LLE and, of course, we will continue to work closely with the sector on its design and delivery. It is important to note that the LLE and its ambitions have been strongly welcomed by the sector for the most part. Stakeholders responded positively to the flexibility and the keenness of a simpler finance system.
The Committee will be aware that the Government published an impact assessment for the Bill, which included a consideration of impact on the providers. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Chesterfield both asked how the cost was constructed. The basis of the calculation is set out on pages 36 and 37 of the impact assessment. That sets out the estimates of the potential implementation costs to providers, which is separate to the wider assessment of the benefits of the LLE.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington also mentioned FE reclassification. He will know that the decision was taken by the Office for National Statistics, but we are supporting colleges with a package that includes an additional allocation of £150 million over the 2023-24 period, and we have invested £300 million in the reprofiling of payments before the end of the financial year, to eliminate the current deficit.
Mr Perkins
How does that capital allocation compare with the number of colleges that had, were in the process of negotiating, or have received offers for, private sector loans in advance of becoming public sector institutions? Will the amount of money allocated enable all those arrangements to go forward? Or is it likely that some will no longer go forward?
Robert Halfon
As well as the figures I mentioned, the DFE is working closely with colleges to try to deal with the difficulties that have come about because of the reclassification of FE colleges. I hope to be able to set out more on that in the weeks ahead.
Robert Halfon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I want to press on because I have a fair whack to get through.
On the cost to providers, the Government will publish a full and detailed impact assessment, including the qualification of expected costs and the benefits of LLE in its entirety, when we lay the necessary secondary legislation to fully implement the LLE. It is important to note that the Bill is simply three technical clauses to create the architecture to enable the LLE.
On funding, I will always champion more resources for FE and skills. There have been some steps forward: we are spending an extra £3.8 billion on skills over this Parliament; increasing 16-to-19 funding by £1.6 billion; spending £2.7 billion, I think, on apprenticeships by 2025; and spending up to £500 million on T-levels. I could go on—for example, we are spending nearly £300 million on the institute of technology colleges.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough raised the issue of FE recruitment, which does concern me. I accept absolutely accept that there is an issue; I do not deny that for one minute. We have an FE teacher training bursary programme to encourage recruitment in key areas of FE that is worth up to £26,000 and will over the coming year, 2023-24. We are investing in a further education workforce package to support the sector with the recruitment, retention and development of teachers, including through a national recruitment campaign.
The hon. Lady will know about our Taking Teaching Further campaign, which supports people business and industry to move into FE part time. I am concerned about recruitment and, although I cannot give any funding commitments other than those I have mentioned, it is very close to my heart, as it is to hers. We are going to make further increases in FE rates over the academic year 2023-24, which will mean that in the relevant financial year we will invest into 16-to-19 education a further £125 million of the £1.6 billion from the spending review. We are also increasing the national funding rate by 2.2%, from £4,500 to £4,642 per student.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington knows that I champion degree apprenticeships. We have spent £8 million to facilitate an increase in the number of degree apprenticeships, of which we have had 140,000 over the past few years. It is a completely new concept that we introduced. I am looking at the burden of regulation and other issues, but I am keen to champion degree apprenticeships—I have always described them as my two favourite words in the English language.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have devolved 60% of the adult education budget. The mayoral combined authorities will be important players in the skills systems, which is why the skills for jobs White Paper makes it clear that they will be engaged in the development of the local skills improvement plans. MCAs will continue to play an important role in the development of provision that responds to a local skills gap, and they obviously have a significant say when it comes to the devolved 60% of the adult education budget. It is important to note what the impact assessment shows: that providers may see increased tuition fee revenue if the LLE encourages more people to engage with lifelong education.
Mr Perkins
Is the Minister saying that he is cognisant of the concerns, but that no additional money has been allocated in the recent Budget for the additional costs that providers have told us will be attached to this style of learning?
Robert Halfon
These things will be decided in future spending statements, and I have highlighted the extra money going into further education over the Parliament and over the coming Budget period.
The pilot scheme was mentioned briefly. I strongly recommend an article about the pilot scheme—the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has probably read it—by a witness to our Committee, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, who says that the whole purpose of the scheme was to show the system working. It was not about quantity, even though there are 100 available courses. He writes that
“the effective administration of those received shows that SLC systems and processes are ready to support modular study.”
In the rest of the article, which I will not detain the Committee by quoting at length, he mentions all the other courses and pilots on modular learning that there have been, stating:
“The In-Work Skills pilot was also a pathway policy for the LLE. Delivered by Institutes of Technology (IoTs)…10 IoTs delivered the In-Work Skills pilot, which was a 1-year pilot that delivered high quality, higher technical short courses…The IoTs delivered a total of 59 short courses to 3,060 learners”.
He also cites other figures to show the extent of the move towards flexible and modular learning.
Importantly, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will know, the strategic priorities grant provides Government funding on an annual basis to support higher education providers’ ongoing teaching, and of course funding levels will be considered in the round at the next spending review, with the LLE in mind. Therefore, as the Government have been mindful of these concerns throughout the development of the LLE, and are confident that providers will be able to consider their own financial sustainability and costs when deciding which courses and modules to offer, we will not support the amendment.
Matt Western
We have had a pretty healthy debate on the amendments. I particularly appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who has expertise specifically across the further education sector, but also in the delivery of apprenticeships.
I hear what the Minister says about the Government being mindful of the costs and so on, but when I look at the provision of further education and the costs at FE colleges, I wonder whether the Government are really being mindful of the cost pressures for them, and I wonder whether they are being mindful of the cost pressures that face the higher education sector, in which 32% of providers are currently in deficit, or of the cost of delivering degree apprenticeships.
Mr Perkins
This is a crucial point. We have already heard about the 27% cuts to the further education sector between 2010 and 2019. The Minister was at pains to say, “Well, there are some pots of money that we are looking at,” but he has also made it absolutely clear that, as things stand, this is being handed over to the next Government with an additional price tag on it and no money allocated. That is what we have heard in today’s debate.
Matt Western
Indeed, which is why the amendments are important. We want to start this policy on solid foundations, because we buy into and support it, but currently it just does not have the financial structure to make it deliverable, because these institutions are already facing massive costs. As my hon. Friend said, there are pots of money, but they are small pots of money when the sectors—particularly the further education sector—are already at a significant disadvantage.
I admire the Minister’s ambition in wanting to increase the retention of staff across the further education sector, but we are also seeing in schools a massive haemorrhaging of the staff—expert teachers and lecturers and so on—and the technicians who support so many of these courses, because they just are not getting the remuneration that they deserve so are leaving. To retain people, we must give them the right reward, and they currently feel massively undervalued by the way the Government are doing things.
As the Minister said—he mentioned his two favourite words—he believes in the sector and its value. I urge him, in future Budget negotiations, to get the support that education needs, particularly in respect of the sectors we are discussing. Too often, they are described as the Cinderella sector, and it is just not good enough. We absolutely must believe in delivering proper education, whether it be technical or otherwise, across society, and presently that is just not happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield reminded us of the issue of risk capital, as described by David Hughes, and the situation we have with the reclassification of debt. I am sure the sector feels completely financially handcuffed by where it is, because it just does not have the funds to do what it needs to do.
On top of that, my hon. Friend reminded us of the statement from Professor Rigby. When we think of an institution delivering a course once or twice a year—with a September, October or January start date for the delivery of courses—and suddenly increasing that from two to 12, it has six times as many. How does an institution staff that? How does it make that happen, as opposed to having modules and courses delivered by a certain number of staff at those start dates? It must lead to a multiplication of the resource, which comes with a significant financial burden. I just do not believe that the impact assessment underlines the reality of what the sector will face. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the context is the 27% reduction in real-terms funding in the FE sector between 2010 and 2019, which has made it all the more difficult.
Let me go back to the Minister’s point, because I love the words “degree apprenticeships” as well. They are fantastic programmes, but as I understand it the problem is that we are seeing a tailing off, and institutions are already saying they will not expand the programmes because of the associated costs. That gives the lie to the ambition, because if that is already beginning to reduce, what chance does this policy have? We will face the same sorts of challenges with lifelong learning, as it is currently set out, that institutions face with the delivery of degree apprenticeships.
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“(1IA) The fee limit as determined under paragraphs 1D, 1E and 1I is to be indexed to any future increase in tuition fees”.
This amendment is to ensure that should the Secretary of State or Parliament decide on any increase in the value of tuition fees, the fee limit is adjusted accordingly to ‘future-proof’ the value of the lifelong learning entitlement.
It is a delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for his commitment to lifelong learning and for his acknowledgement of the position regarding FE lecturers and teachers. All of us who value our superb FE sector are aware of the pressures it is under, but I ask him to take up with me outside this discussion the unintended consequences of bringing other providers into a field where they can detract and take people away.
I welcome the commitment to lifelong learning but, as my amendment speaks to the issue of fees and therefore indebtedness, I also feel obliged to place on the record my thanks to Governments past for making the commitment to provide me and my generation with an entirely free education. Given that I started as an undergraduate in the 1970s, I recognise the wisdom of Harold Wilson in establishing the Open University. His good sense, and that of Jim Callaghan, ensured that working-class youngsters could fulfil their potential without the burden of long-term debt.
It is a different world now, and I very much regret the commodification and commercialisation of education in this neoliberal world. I hope that future Governments will abolish tuition fees for those embarking on their higher education journey. I am of the view that some of the changes we have seen since the 1970s have not been to the betterment of those wishing to further their training and education, or to the betterment of our economy and society. But we are where we are, and the Government’s intended commitment to lifelong learning warrants support—albeit, as ever, subject to the rigours of examination in the Bill Committee process.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough for tabling this amendment and arguing for it so well. He is quite right that, given what we have been through over the past decade or so, the effective freeze in tuition fees has led to a significant decline in the value of the unit of resource, and he is right about the need for some form of futureproof guarantee that, should there be a rise in tuition fees, that should be matched by a consequent rise in the value of the lifelong loan entitlement.
Over the last decade, we have seen tuition fees reach £9,250 but they have essentially been frozen for the last five years, having had, as my hon. Friend explained, a marginal reduction back in 2017. We have seen a real-terms decline in their value. Indeed, Universities UK calculated that by the end of the 2024 academic year inflation would reduce the value of the annual tuition fee to £6,600 based on prices in 2012, when the fees cap was trebled to £9,000. That is a reduction of almost £2,500 in the unit of resource to an institution, which is putting huge pressures on those institutions. That was the point we were making in the debate on amendments 7 and 8. Institutions are under real financial pressure as there has been such a massive decline in the value of that unit of resource. London Economics has estimated that over the past decade, the overall income for students per unit of resource would be back at 2006 levels, when fees were £3,000. That gives some context as to just how much the sums involved have been devalued over time.
As I mentioned earlier, that devaluation is having a tangible effect on institutional financial sustainability, with many institutions reporting deficits and having to cross-subsidise their courses, take on more international students or borrow from the private sector. The amendment would seek to tie the lifelong learning loan to any rise in the value of tuition fees, as I have said. The point is that if this really is to be a lifelong loan entitlement, it is important that learners who benefit from a module in, say, two years’ time and who wish to return to studying 20 years later, in 2045, have access to the same quantity of learning as they would have done 20 years before. Otherwise, we will see the risk of individuals using their entitlement very early on in their lives paying the price of that and not being able to access further training or tuition later in life because they have used up their entitlements.
Given that there is a real need to make this work and to make the system as attractive as possible, we urge the Government to consider some form of indexation. Sir Philip Augar described this system as having
“the potential to be a game changer”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 45, Q89.]
We have heard that description before. But that potential can be realised only if the system is protected against the real risk of inflation. We saw inflation peak yet again yesterday—to, I think, 10.6%.
Mr Perkins
I want to come in at this moment, because we would all hope that learners who are looking for work and on universal credit might, as part of their efforts to get another job, take on courses and develop their skills. During the progression of the Bill that became the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, we highlighted issues about the entitlement to study for those in receipt of universal credit, and amendments to the skills Bill in both the Commons and the Lords would have enabled some people in receipt of universal credit to study. Those were removed by the Government, but at the time, they offered the reassurance that they were consulting with the Department for Work and Pensions about the issue. I have heard nothing more since, so I hope the Minister might be able to tell us what happened with that consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that in order for this measure to be as transformational and game changing as we hope, people who are in receipt of universal credit must be able to access a loan to develop their skills in order to get into another job, rather than being told, “No, you can’t do that because you’re not spending enough time looking for another job”?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend brings up a valid and pertinent point about the reality for so many people. The intent behind this legislation and policy is a good one, and it should be there to assist people in that particular predicament, but, as he says, it does not seem that that will necessarily be the case. However, I am sure that the Minister listened to his points and will address them in his response.
This amendment would ensure the long-term sustainability of the lifelong learning model and allow students who “bank” their credits to have the same chances later on in life to add to that bank. I will understand if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment as drafted, but given that he is planning on introducing long-lasting reforms to be used by people in the course of their lives, I would like to press him on how he envisages the value of the LLE being maintained over the years.
Robert Halfon
I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on his amendment and his kind words. I am absolutely with him on the Open University, which many of my constituents in Harlow have had incredible value from. It is one of the great education reforms of the last century, without a shadow of a doubt. As an anoraky child, I watched some of its content on television —now it is all on the internet—late at night, because I was at home a lot, growing up. I therefore have complete sympathy with his remarks.
It is worth mentioning that the lifelong loan entitlement is intended to replace, as we have discussed throughout today, the current student finance system. As a result, from 2025 onwards, the fee limit rate and the per-credit fee rate will be exactly the same thing. It may help if I provide further detail about paragraphs 1D, 1E and 1I, which set out the fee limit calculation for credit-bearing and non-credit-bearing course years, and introduce the per-credit method into existing clauses in schedule 2 that set out how the four different fee rates are applied. Essentially, they set out how the credit-based fee limit method will work.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for his response. On the ancillary issue of universal credit, I have an uncanny feeling that the protections are not as universal as the Opposition hope. Nevertheless, we have been given some reassurances. On the substantive matter of my amendment, I am pleased that the system works, that the Minister has been persuaded of the veracity of our arguments and that it is already built into his thinking. With that, I will not press the amendment to a Division, and I thank the Minister for his clarifications.
Robert Halfon
I forgot to mention this but I think the hon. Gentleman asked to see me. I would, of course, be happy to meet him at any time.
Amendment negatived.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Halfon
This has been a good debate on clause 1, which enables tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules to be calculated using a per-credit method under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The current tuition fee limits system, where fees are determined per academic year, cannot be applied appropriately to the short courses and modules that are integral to flexible lifelong learning and the wider LLE. If HERA is not amended, students who use the LLE to study shorter programmes could face tuition fees that are disproportionate to the size of their course. For example, a single parent studying one 30 credit module in social care could be charged £9,250 per year—the same as a student studying a full year of a degree programme.
The new per-credit method introduced by this clause will ensure that fee caps can be applied fairly to all types of learning under the LLE, whether the learner chooses to build up a qualification at their own pace or undertake the entire qualification in one go. Therefore, the single parent studying the 30 credit module will pay a proportionate amount compared to a larger programme, making it more affordable for them to space out their studies and learn at a pace that is right for them.
The principle of the credit-based method is set out in the Bill in new paragraph 1D, which is that fee limits will be set at the number of credits undertaken by the student, multiplied by the relevant per-credit limit. That is supplemented by the new powers in paragraph 1C, which ensure that the necessary numerical details can be set out in the regulations, as they are now, which Parliament will be able to scrutinise under the affirmative procedure.
To introduce the per-credit fee limit method, clause 1 includes three key measures. First, in new paragraph 1A, it introduces the concept of the credit as the basis of a new fee-limit calculation. Credits are defined in the Bill, in accordance with their current usage across further and higher education, and are already a popular measure of learner time.
Secondly, clause 1(2)(b) introduces the concept of a course year as the period to which fee limits are applied. The course year offers far more accuracy than the current academic year, as it can start on the first of any month in a year. That means fee limits for short courses and modules can be set with greater precision. Currently, if a course begins in November, its fee limits are applied from the 12 months beginning on 1 September. Under the course year system, courses will be capped from the start of whichever month they begin. That more precise approach will be needed to accurately fee cap the shorter periods of study that the LLE seeks to encourage.
Finally, as set out in new paragraph 1C, the clause enables the Secretary of State to limit the number of credits that can be charged for each type of course. Providers would not be able to charge for more than 360 credits for a three-year bachelor’s degree with honours. As in the current system, they may still offer more than 360 credits for the degree, but would not be able to charge the student extra fees, preventing students from being charged unfairly for their studies.
The clause is an integral part of the Government’s transformation of student finance, giving people a real choice in how and when they study, so that they can acquire new life-changing skills.
Matt Western
As I said at the outset and on Second Reading, we agree with the essence of this Bill. We certainly agree with the purpose behind introducing lifelong learning, but, for the reasons outlined in our amendments, we have real concerns about its delivery and whether it will be successful. I am sure that the take-up of recent initiatives such as the T-level programme and accelerated degrees is not as high as the Government wanted it to be. We fear that this measure will not be successful either, for all the reasons given today and on Second Reading.
Picking up on the points made in Tuesday’s witness sessions, we believe that there needs to be more consultation with all stakeholders—not just the education providers, but all those involved in the design and provision of training, particularly vocational and skills training. I am disappointed that those amendments were not agreed to.
We have made an important point about the definition of credits and the standardisation of transcripts relating to students moving between courses and providers. That should be reflected in the Bill. It is vital that the sector and the institutions have confidence in this programme and that they trust each other and the standard of the qualification with which individuals come to them. They already have those sorts of arrangements, but they are very much bespoke and ad hoc and have been built up over time. Suddenly, this is going to be opened up considerably. I am sure that the sector is very nervous about what that will mean for the onboarding of students into institutions.
We addressed financial sustainability at some length. The pressures faced by the sector—including FE colleges and higher education institution providers—cannot be exaggerated. The Minister said that there is no need to increase the unit of resource, but the fact that 32% of higher education providers are already in deficit really should be ringing alarm bells in the Department for Education regarding what our educational landscape will look like over the next few. That is why our amendments were important—they would have ensured that the Minister and the Department had due regard to the financial pressures faced by the sector.
I am disappointed that the amendment on minimum credits was not accepted, but I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on it, given that the purpose behind it is to reskill, retrain and help people back into the workplace. It would also have benefited the plethora of organisations of different shapes and sizes that the economy will support in the future, which will require a very different training model as they address social need. That is why I think that challenging the 30 credits was the right thing to do. I very much hope that the Government will remain open to thinking about how that might work, rather than just having a bundle of three 10-credit modules in future. We support the Bill, but we will abstain on the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Related amendments
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 6, line 18, after “courses” insert—
“which are defined as modules under subsection (6A)”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State is unable to treat modular courses and other modes of study or subjects differently from one another for the purposes of the fee limit.
Matt Western
Our amendment looks at the funding of modular study versus yearly study and seeks to incorporate into the Bill a greater assurance that the Minister cannot discriminate in granting funding to different types of courses or modes of study.
Numerous concerns have been expressed to me about proposed new subsection (7A), to which the amendment applies. In particular, providers are worried that it will give Government the ability to introduce variable fees by subject or mode of study. By extension, they are worried that the proposed new subsection could also pave the way for differential fees for undergraduate courses, depending on subject and institution.
We have already seen hints of that in recent years, with the Government deriding certain courses, labelling them with the names of all sorts of cartoon characters and reprioritising the strategic priorities grant away from arts-based courses towards STEM subjects. That has received widespread reaction and rejection, because of the importance of the arts and humanities not just to us socially but to the UK economy, whereby our soft power in the creative arts and commercial applications do so well.
The result of such changes has been uncertainty in the sector, with the closure of several renowned departments and increasing hostility from Government about the value of the arts. It would therefore be of great reassurance to the sector if the Minister could today provide a cast-iron guarantee that the Government have absolutely no intention of introducing variable fees based on course type or mode of study.
Robert Halfon
I am pleased to speak to the amendment. If the Committee will permit, I will provide some background information on what proposed new subsection (7A) is intended to achieve.
Section 10(7) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 sets out that if fee limits are set on one type of course, they must also be set on other courses of a similar type at the same or comparable level. The Bill makes a technical change to section 10 to put beyond doubt that the Secretary of State will not be required to place fee limits on courses and modules that are not designated for student finance.
I want to make it clear that that original section does not restrict the Secretary of State from setting differential fee rates for different subjects. That ability is provided for elsewhere in the Higher Education and Research Act, specifically through the power in section 119(5)(a) and schedule 2, which allow the Secretary of State to make different provision for different purposes, cases or areas. That power means that the ability to set different fee limits for different courses is already in the primary legislation.
Section 10(7) is specifically in reference to which courses have fee limits, and which do not. The amendment therefore could result in an LLE non-funded course being subject to fee limits even if the course were not designated for loan funding at all. For example, a university summer course could be forced to comply with per-credit fee limits rules, even though students on the course are not LLE-funded and they self-finance. That scenario would not be fair on providers, which is why we cannot support the amendment.
Matt Western
I hear what the Minister says, and I will look again at that. I take what he says on face value, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Halfon
Clause 2 further supports clause 1 in ensuring that fee limits can be proportionate to the amount of study taken by students under the LLE. It makes further technical but necessary amendments to HERA 2017 as a result of the changes to legislation made in clause 1.
Clause 2 amends existing reporting duties on the Office for Students and providers so that the duties include the new credit-based fee limit amounts, in addition to any per-year fee limit amounts that apply. That is not intended to add any unnecessary burdens; it only adjusts the duty to reflect the new fee limit method. Subsections (2) and (4) provide explicit powers for the OFS to regulate fee limits at third-party providers, which will ensure that students cannot be charged thousands of pounds extra for choosing to study at a franchised provider.
Finally, clause 2 makes express provision in section 10 of HERA 2017 to allow the Secretary of State to set fee limits only on those courses and modules that are in scope for LLE funding. That will ensure that fee limits are not required for every single module of higher education, regardless of whether it attracts LLE funding.
The clause is an important part of the Government’s transformation of student finance. The LLE will give people a real choice in how and when they study so that they can acquire new life-changing skills. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement and short title
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 3, page 8, line 36, after “may” insert “until 31 January 2024”.
This amendment would ensure that the transitional or saving provisions available to the Secretary of State are only available until 31 January 2024.
Amendment 12 seeks to incorporate in the Bill a limitation on the Secretary of State exercising the saving and transitional provisions after 31 January 2024. It is a very simple amendment that aims at a compromise: to give the Secretary of State and the Minister just under a year to get this through and operationalised, and to give providers around 18 months to plan and anticipate how they might respond.
We have already seen delays to the lifelong learning policy, including in relation to the report by Sir Philip Augar in 2018, and not least the almost year-long wait between the consultation and the Government publishing their response. As I said earlier, that might suggest that the turmoil in the Department for Education has meant that this issue has very much fallen to the wayside and not been seen as a priority. Indeed, the Schools Bill was introduced, but also fell by the wayside. So much of the initiative and need to modernise education has been deprioritised by the Government over this last year in particular.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned on Tuesday, we have had a skills shortage in this country since time immemorial. If the reforms promised in this policy are to be revolutionary, we need to press on and advance this programme, because we suffer a significant skills shortage, certainly compared with our major European and global peers. One has only to look at Germany, France or Italy, which are significantly ahead of us.
It is also important that the provisions in this Bill are not implemented in a haphazard way, and that the reforms that they make to the student finance package are absolutely coherent. Therefore, if the Minister will not accept this amendment, I would ask him to explain where he envisages needing to delay the enactment of provisions in this Bill.
I am sure that the sector would welcome a clear timeline from the Minister on when he expects the framework within this Bill to be in place, subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, not least because of the institutional financial planning restraints that we heard about, particularly from Dr Norton, from Coventry University and Professor Rigby from Bath Spa University. Given those financial challenges, the additional administrative burden, and the costs to the institutions, it is vital that this is laid out clearly to ensure a managed transition to 2025. I hope that the Minister, in his response, will set out what that framework will look like.
Robert Halfon
Amendment 12 would require any regulations on transitional arrangements in connection with the coming into force of the Bill to be laid before the end of January 2024.
Due to the complexity of the regulations required, and consistent with our plans to introduce the LLE from 2025, we are not intending to lay the broader suite of regulations to enable the LLE until after January 2024. Part of those regulations will include transitional and savings provisions that are needed in relation to the new powers in clauses 1 and 2.
The LLE is a long-lasting systemic reform, as we have discussed today, set to affect generations of future students. It is imperative that we get this right, and that utmost care is taken of both the nation’s finances and our future learners, giving them the consideration they deserve.
We have already published clear directions for the LLE in the consultation response and we will continue to engage closely with providers as the remaining aspects are developed. The consultation response sets out specific areas where we will engage with them in the future, such as the additional entitlement issue. That is why the Government cannot support the amendment, because we need to get this absolutely right and ensure that these regulations are done carefully.
Matt Western
I would like to take the Minister at face value. I am sure that that is the Government’s intention, but, as I say, given some of the programmes and initiatives that have been introduced recently and the chaos and turmoil that we have seen within the Department for Education over this past year, I am not assured by what the Minister has said. On that basis, we will be pushing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Robert Halfon
Clause 3 provides for the territorial extent of the Bill, its commencement and the short title. The clause outlines the territorial extent of the measures, with the Bill extending to England and Wales. However, as education is a devolved matter, the Bill applies only to England, and the amendments made by clauses 1 and 2 apply only to English higher education providers.
Commencement of clauses 1 and 2 will be confirmed by regulations made by statutory instrument. The overall reforms to the student support system, along with the changes to be made as a result of the Bill, will not start until the academic year 2025-26, and we currently anticipate making the necessary secondary legislation over the course of 2024. Once enacted, the Bill will be known as the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act.
I thank the Opposition for the way they have approached the Bill. We have had some serious and constructive debate, and I really appreciate the way they have taken it forward from their side. Of course, I also thank my own side for all their support for the Bill. We have been discussing credits and transfers, and my firm view is that the Bill will be transformative once it comes into play in 2025. It will potentially make a huge difference to many future learners.
I also thank officials at DFE, who have done an extraordinary job in preparing for everything; my Whip; and you, Mrs Cummins, for chairing today’s session. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Western
We do not wish to oppose clause 3, but I will add my remarks to those of the Minister. I thank you, Mrs Cummins, and Sir Robert for chairing us through the last couple of days. I thank the Clerks and Department for Education officials for the work that they have put into the Bill. Most importantly, I thank Members and the Minister for the spirit in which the Committee has been conducted. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance, and I particularly thank my Whip as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
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
Backbench Business
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
Whistleblowing Awareness Week
(1 year, 1 month 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
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Whistleblowing Awareness Week.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am pleased to be here today to consider Whistleblowing Awareness Week. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I would like to recognise the work of our secretariat, WhistleblowersUK, and other partners and supporters in bringing together a programme of events to mark the UK’s first Whistle- blowing Awareness Week.
What is Whistleblowing Awareness Week? In short, it is a celebration of the people and organisations who work hard to do the right thing and shine a light on abuse, corruption, fraud, patient safety concerns and other wrongdoing that would otherwise continue to go unchecked. It is a chance to use the past to shape the future, and to acknowledge what works and what needs to change. It is an opportunity to demonstrate how reforming existing legislation with a new whistleblowing law would put the public interest first and ensure that UK standards are global standards.
We need standards that protect whistleblowers by empowering people to speak up and normalising doing so, investigating concerns, stopping wrongdoing and saving money. We need to have penalties—this must have teeth—that incentivise organisations to do the right thing, and education and access to help and support people and organisations.
Why do we need to raise awareness? Whistleblowers are often described as the canary in the coal mine. What an analogy that is; we all know that the canary suffers in order to let people know that there is a problem. Whistleblowers are ordinary people who see something that is wrong and speak up to stop it, with an expectation that those who have the authority to do something will put things right. It is a fair expectation, but, sadly, it is often far from the reality.
Very often, others in an organisation are also aware of the wrongdoing, but only one person has the courage to speak out and to keep speaking out—the person who will not be fobbed off. This is the person with integrity, who believes in policy and procedures, who believes that the organisation they work for wants to know, and who believes that it will act to stop wrongdoing and protect others from abuse or harm.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I hope to speak in the debate later, so I will keep my intervention short. Does my hon. Friend feel that we need some sort of cultural shift and cultural change that creates a safer space, with the attitude that whistleblowing is not bad, but can actually help an organisation, society and individuals?
Mary Robinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that when people do not speak out, it is because of the culture. We have seen that this week with the report on the Metropolitan police, which I will go on to consider later. She is entirely right that the culture in organisations needs to be changed. I believe that that culture change needs to be led by a change in our legislation.
Name an industry or a sector, and I can name a scandal brought to light by whistleblowers, who have been stifled, ignored or gaslit rather than listened to, and who have then been bullied and harassed out of their jobs. People who see that happening think twice about blowing the whistle. Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said, all too often people who could and should speak out fear the culture in an organisation and are silenced by it, with devastating results.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, and we are listening with great interest. I congratulate her on securing this debate and on all her campaigning work on whistleblowing over the past few years, for which we are really grateful. Regrettably, I am unable to stay and make a speech, although I would have liked to do so. I apologise; I am on the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill Committee at 2 o’clock, but I shall read the rest of her speech and the other contributions with great interest.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we all have a duty to encourage individuals to come forward to highlight such issues and to be whistleblowers when they see something wrong? The awareness week will help us get that publicity.
Mary Robinson
My right hon. Friend has got right to the heart of this matter. If people do not know that they can come forward, or if they are in an organisation with a culture of fear and cover-up, they will not. Whistleblowing Awareness Week is about ensuring that people know what they can do, and about making organisations aware that they need to change. I am pushing for changes to legislation, as the Minister knows from our conversations —it is great to have him here today. My right hon. Friend is entirely right; it is about the culture in organisations.
The publication this week of Baroness Casey’s report into the Metropolitan police lays bare the tragic consequences of a culture of fear and cover-up, but if it were not this report, there would be another story in the headlines this week exposed by a whistleblower—or worse.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. The Casey review highlights a very specific example that shows why this debate is so important. Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, says he believes that he cannot sack officers who are either convicted of or under investigation for criminal offences. Why would whistleblowers come forward if there is no positive consequence to their actions?
Mary Robinson
That is at the heart of the problem. If people see that nothing is going to happen, why would they come forward? If they see that somebody is going to be bullied out of their job, why would they come forward? If they see that complaints or information about wrongdoing that they take to their senior leadership will not be acted on, why would they come forward? That is exactly at the heart of the problem.
We need to consider not just the impact of whistleblowers coming forward, making a complaint and letting people know what is going on, but also the impact of not doing that. We need to consider the impact when there is somebody in the police force who is known to indulge, or suspected of indulging, in bad or criminal behaviour, but nothing is done, nobody speaks out and the leadership does not act.
For this Whistleblowing Awareness Week, participants at a series of events in Westminster have heard from a wide range of whistleblowing experts from across the globe—legal, financial and human resources professionals, and those who have turned their lived, first-hand experience into action and passion for change. On Tuesday morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) chaired a roundtable on whistleblowing in the healthcare sector. I hope she will speak about that later. We heard from a range of experts, including the national guardian for freedom to speak up in the NHS, Dr Jayne Chidgey-Clark. That role came out of the recommendations of the 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report by Sir Robert Francis KC, which found that NHS culture did not always encourage staff to speak up or facilitate their doing so. That failure had a direct and negative impact on patients and staff.
Time and again, we have seen the impact of that failure in health trusts across the country: people have been impacted by scandals and lives have been lost in tragic circumstances. The national guardian is tasked with leading the change in NHS culture—look, it must change. Her most recent report includes many positive voices, which is good, but it also highlights that 58.3% of freedom to speak up guardians believe that barriers to speaking up include the concern that nothing will be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) said. Alarmingly, 69% believe that a fear of retaliation or suffering as a result of speaking out is a deterrent. Clearly, there is more to be done to break down these barriers.
Patient safety depends on the success of a speaking-out culture, and that should sit alongside a learning culture where mistakes are not covered up for fear of blame. Doctors, nurses and other staff in healthcare settings have lives in their hands and they must feel comfortable, confident and able to report errors and mistakes.
It is often the whistleblowers themselves who give the most powerful testimony. Dr Chris Day is not only a whistleblower—he raised serious patient safety concerns while working as a junior doctor in an intensive care unit—but a change maker who exposed a gap in whistleblowing law that was subsequently reformed. After having blown the whistle on the understaffing that he witnessed, there was another battle on his hands: who can be held to account under existing legislation? As a junior doctor, his training and career were in the hands of Health Education England, who argued that as it did not directly employ Dr Day, the law did not apply to it. He challenged that, and the court found that junior doctors did come under the extended definition of worker. It also found that a worker could have two employers under whistleblowing legislation. Although the issues that he raised as a whistleblower have not been resolved, Dr Day’s actions have resulted in a change to the law.
During our roundtable on Wednesday this week, exploring the new approach to whistleblowing, we heard from Jonathan Taylor, who exposed bribery in the oil and gas industry. Although his disclosures resulted in SBM, a Dutch multinational, paying out more than $800 million in fines and related payments, his whistleblowing also put a stop to an economic crime that had run to hundreds of millions. A statistic that is shared many times in Parliament, including by me, is that 43% of economic crime is detected and exposed through whistleblowers. The Minister has previously said he believes that about 100% of economic crime detection could be attributed to whistleblowing. So, if we want to know where economic crime is being committed, we need to encourage whistle- blowers and others to speak out.
However, speaking up came at a huge personal and professional cost to Mr Taylor. Not only did he spend a year under house arrest in Croatia, but he lost his career. We cannot overestimate the mental and emotional toll that whistleblowing has on people, and he is not alone in his experience. It is no wonder, after having heard the detriment suffered by so many whistleblowers, that people are averse to speaking up.
We also had the pleasure of welcoming Zelda Perkins, who, in breaking her non-disclosure agreement, shone a light on sexual abuse in Hollywood and helped to expose a top film executive who would later be prosecuted for sexual assault and rape. She went on to co-found the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, which seeks to make NDAs unenforceable except in the case of preventing the sharing of confidential business information and trade secrets, which was their original purpose. The campaign’s efforts contributed to the Department for Education’s introduction of its pledge to end the use of NDAs in universities. That is progress, but we need to go further.
NDAs are often used not just to settle employment disputes, but to silence people. Fraud, corruption, incompetence, environmental damage, abuse, avoidable deaths and cover-ups are silently buried through the use of those agreements. Instead, I would like to bury the use of NDAs for that purpose. We have a situation where some people want to speak up but are bound by such legal agreements, and we have others who could speak but fear reprisals and repercussions. Either way, wrongdoing goes unchallenged. So now what?
Baroness Casey’s Met police review highlights systemic and chronic problems that can arise across any organisation where there is a culture of fear and cover-up. We have a police force riddled with misogyny, racism and homophobia, with inadequate management structures, a lack of leadership and a culture of fear. She describes an organisation where:
“The culture of not speaking up has become so ingrained that even when senior officers actively seek candid views, there is a reluctance to speak up.”
Whistleblowers must have trust and confidence in internal processes, but whistleblowers often come from outside these organisations. I remain concerned that our lack of an inclusive and effective whistleblowing law will continue to hinder progress.
Colleagues may know that last year I brought forward a private Member’s Bill that would reform our whistleblowing legislation. Although it fell because of lack of time, I remain determined to see changes to how we support, encourage and protect the brave people who are prepared to speak out and report wrongdoing. The Bill proposed to create an office of the whistleblower, which would be responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing standards in the management of whistleblowing cases. The office would provide advice services and a clear avenue for disclosure, and it would direct investigations and handle redress for whistleblowers. Importantly, it would support anyone blowing the whistle.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes it clear that whistleblowing can affect anyone, no matter what organisation they are attached to. Does she agree that that is why we need some changes to the legislative framework to ensure this much-needed change happens? Cultural change alone will not do it; it needs a nudge from Government.
Mary Robinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in making that point. In the context of employment law, the existing legislation relates only to people in an employer-employee relationship. As I was going on to say, there is evidence that an office of the whistleblower would incentivise disclosures. People would have a safe space in which to speak, and currently they do not have that across every sector and in every way.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes the good point that the existing legislation covers only people who are employed by organisations, but it was evident on Tuesday that sometimes employees do not feel able to bring forward their concerns. In the NHS, patients or their families end up having to raise the concerns, and they are not covered by the legislation.
Mary Robinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which gets to the heart of the matter. Our existing law only looks at whether there is an employer-employee relationship, and when there is a relationship breakdown and the person is forced out of their job or leaves it—whether or not that is because of constructive dismissal—they will end up in an employment tribunal arguing the case for their job and their livelihood. The issue that she raises is not touched on at all. Family members of patients, or those who have come across harm and wrongdoing in a different way, have no cover at all. Across the piece, whistleblowers do not get the protection they need, and I would like that to be changed.
To put into perspective where we are now, in 2020 the International Bar Association measured countries with whistleblowing legislation against a list of 20 best practices. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) knows, the existing legislation was introduced in 1998 by her predecessor, so the provisions have been in our law for some time and were ground- breaking at the time. The UK meets only five of the 20 best practice measures. Meanwhile, the United States, whose Office of the Whistleblower sits in the Securities and Exchange Commission, met 16 of the measures. That office received 12,300 disclosures in 2022, which was nearly double the 2020 figure. Ministers have promised a review of the existing whistleblowing framework, and that is welcome.
James Daly
Will my hon. Friend comment on this matter in respect of how the legislation is not working? Originally, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 did not apply to police officers. However, whistleblowing provisions and protections came in through the Police Reform Act 2002, and they received whistleblowing protection from 1 April 2004. We have legislation in place that states police officers have whistleblowing protection. The situation has actually got worse, and that clearly shows that the legislation needs reforming immediately.
Mary Robinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that; we have seen it across various police forces. We are now further examining how the cultures are working, and that need for reform is there. It shows that the best intentions to bring in reforms do not always lead to the protections that we want people to have.
I welcome the review. However, as part of it, I ask the Minister and the Department to look at where this policy area falls and which Department should take responsibility. We have spoken already today about the NHS, policing, and different sectors and organisations. Although I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is now the Minister responsible, given his extensive experience and his support for whistleblowers and legislative change, I hope that he and the Government will look at the issue in a different way. The existing law has constraints because it relates to only employment and business. Perhaps now is the time to look at the issue more holistically, because it crosses so many Departments.
As I have already set out, the issue cuts across industries and sectors. Importantly, anyone—not just an employee—can be a whistleblower. However, our laws have told us to look at it from only an employer-employee perspective. When it was introduced 25 years ago, the Public Interest Disclosure Act was heralded as world leading, with protections for whistleblowers at employment tribunals. However, as I just said to my hon. Friend, just 4% of employment cases are successful at tribunal. That further brings PIDA’s efficacy into question.
We are all familiar with gov.uk; it is where we get all our information. The gov.uk page on whistleblowing says:
“You’re a whistleblower if you’re a worker and you report certain types of wrongdoing. This will usually be something you’ve seen at work - though not always.
The wrongdoing you disclose must be in the public interest. This means it must affect others, for example the general public.”
By my interpretation, that means the Government consider only a limited part of the population to be whistleblowers.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister attended the launch of Whistleblowing Awareness Week on Monday. I am grateful for his comments and support. He has wide-ranging and in-depth knowledge in this area; I like to think that is partly due to his time as co-chair of the APPG on whistleblowing. I was interested to hear his comments on his business experience and the importance of customer complaints. However, if a customer witnesses wrongdoing in a business or organisation, they are not covered by PIDA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash pointed out, a family member of an employee is not covered. Volunteers and contractors are not covered either.
Despite concerns expressed by some, this is not about stripping back employment rights. It is about extending those rights and protections to the wider population. It is about protecting victims of crime who may have evidence of wrongdoing within the police, protecting lawyers and accountants who have uncovered evidence of fraud, and protecting those associated with economic crime who may wish to inform law enforcement. Whistleblowing is more than an employment issue. It is a business issue, a safety issue and an issue for Government. I question whether its future belongs in employment law at all.
During Whistleblowing Awareness Week, we heard from some of those who have spoken out about their journey to expose the truth. Our discussions highlighted the urgent need for the Government to introduce new legislation that defines whistleblowing and puts in place meaningful measures to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. It is interesting that our existing legislation does not mention the word “whistleblower” at all.
For those in doubt about the urgency for reform, I hope I have made some of the moral arguments. Let us get to finance. Whistleblowers are acknowledged as the single most effective means of addressing fraud and corruption—not accountants, lawyers or anybody else, but whistleblowers. It is estimated that fraud and corruption costs the UK over £190 billion a year. To put that into perspective, that is more than the entire NHS budget. We cannot continue in this way.
The proposals backed by the APPG on whistleblowing and in the Bill that I brought forward last year will improve the rights of workers, give new rights to everyone, save lives and put an end to the costly and wasteful practice of cover up.
Whistleblowing Awareness Week was brought forward and launched to introduce and mobilise public opinion, influence legislators, celebrate those courageous whistle- blowers who have already given so much to society and seek to bring about a better world in which ordinary people will no longer have to have extraordinary courage to speak up. It is my hope that the conversations we have had this week will continue to move the dial towards legislative change, and I am grateful to have the time in this debate to be able to raise awareness of Whistleblowing Awareness Week.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for a long time; there are good MPs and there are great MPs, and she is a great MP. I want to amplify the time, effort and courage that she has shown on this particular issue, because she has done some very important work and continues to do it to this day.
I am a member of the Home Affairs and Justice Committees, so I will talk about whistleblowing in that context. It is wonderful to see the Minister in his place. Before he took up his ministerial position, he did a lot of work in this House on economic crime, and he knows the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. The Casey review has highlighted and amplified the importance of whistleblowers. Baroness Casey appeared before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday and outlined a whole set of horrific allegations and incidents that have happened in the Metropolitan police over a number of years. It is simply not good enough to say, “Yes, those were horrific. What can we do about that?” In my view, one of the reasons why the system was unable to deal with some of the problems we have seen in police forces throughout the country is that although there are some protections—I read out the Police Reform Act 2002 earlier—they are not good enough to encourage and give people the protection to speak out about the abominable acts they see around them.
In the Metropolitan police, officers were witnessing criminal behaviour, but they did not have the protection to be able to speak out about it. It is quite extraordinary when we think about it. This week—I think this was a recent statement, but this must put it into perspective— Sir Mark Rowley said:
“So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre—I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
A witness to a criminal act might want to be a whistleblower, but why would they threaten their career progression or risk the breakdown of relationships with work colleagues if they knew there would be no consequences?
The situation is worse than that. In Greater Manchester police, there was a lady named Maggie Oliver, who I think all of us in the room know; my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has done a lot of work with her. Maggie was involved for 15 years in the investigation of serious sexual offending in the Greater Manchester area. She had to resign from her job for stating—I will just say it as it is—that rapes were being carried out on teenagers in the Rochdale area and the police were refusing to do anything about it. Within the internal procedures and processes of the police force, she could not even have that matter dealt with. This is a matter of fact; this is not made up.
Maggie had to take the brave decision to leave a career that she loved after 15 years to state the obvious and honest facts of what was happening within the police. What has happened? She has been incredibly brave —she has set up the Maggie Oliver Foundation—but Greater Manchester police continued to say, “No, that’s not true”—they covered the whole thing up and made it incredibly difficult.
Both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle have had various officers from Greater Manchester police come to us stating the most appalling things, but they are concerned that there is no protection because, even though there is some in PIDA and the other legislation, the actual culture in these organisations means that they will be hounded out of their jobs. In 2019, in Greater Manchester police, it was quite obvious to a number of us that the new, £27 million integrated operational policing system computer was falling apart. No police officer publicly criticised that. No police officer was able to go out and say, “This is a disaster.” But they came to various elected representatives and the local paper, the Manchester Evening News, to say that, as a result of what was happening, police and public safety was at risk. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police at the time said it was not true, and that everything was fine—but it was true.
Even with fundamental issues of public safety, when people are being brutalised in the most appalling manner, people in our police forces are not confident that they will have sufficient protections to enable them to protect the public. I cannot find the words to describe how appalling that is. There are things in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 that are still applicable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said that the definition meant that the relevant person had to be an employee. The qualifying disclosures for which someone is covered and given protection are:
“a criminal offence has been committed…a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation…a miscarriage of justice has occurred…the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered…the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged”.
That is a very broad description of what is in the public interest.
There are warm words on the statute book, but they do not work. They should apply outside of just employees, but even if we look at them on their own terms, they do not work. The evidence says they do not work. I suspect the Minister agrees with me, and feels that we have to find a different way to deal with such matters. We asked Baroness Casey how long it would be until we could assess the reform needed at the Metropolitan police; she answered that it would be at least two years. Who protects the public in those two years? We have had disasters in the Met for years and years. Whistleblowers are the protection for the public, and they will not come forward because the system does not protect them.
I argue strongly that we are in a very bad situation. I was going to say that we should treasure whistleblowers— I think that is the correct word. I cannot think of a circumstance where a whistleblower would take that brave step if it was not in the public interest and for a public good. We need a different way, and the private Member’s Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle offers one. I say bluntly to the Minister that if we do not have those protections, we will have another report from another eminent person about another police force saying that appalling things have been happening, but officers have not had sufficient protection from internal management and procedures to come forward and do what is right. That needs to be changed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I support every single word she said.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to participate in this debate during Whistleblowing Awareness Week 2023. Let us hope it is the first of many, but let us also hope that we do not need it for many years to come.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on securing today’s debate, and I thank her for her work in bringing this important issue to the forefront of public debate, culminating in the inaugural Whistleblowing Awareness Week. I was delighted to accept an invitation from her to chair the roundtable earlier this week, where we held a productive discussion about the challenges that whistleblowers face in our NHS.
I will use my time today to highlight the importance of whistleblowing and add my name to the growing list of parliamentarians calling on the Government to introduce fresh legislation to protect those brave enough to expose wrongdoing where it is in the public interest.
It is worth reiterating for the benefit of those watching our proceedings, including my constituents, exactly what defines a whistleblower. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has already quoted what is on the gov.uk website, but I do not think it does any harm to repeat it and repeat it. It defines a whistleblower as a person who will
“report certain types of wrongdoing. This will usually be something you’ve seen at work—though not always.
The wrongdoing you disclose must be in the public interest. This means it must affect others, for example the general public.”
It goes on to reassure readers that
“As a whistleblower you’re protected by law—you should not be treated unfairly or lose your job because you ‘blow the whistle’.
You can raise your concern at any time about an incident that happened in the past, is happening now, or you believe will happen in the near future.”
However, although in principle individuals are protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, we know that in practice whistleblowers remain vulnerable to retaliation for their actions, due in part to the current inadequacies of existing legislation.
Over many decades, thanks to the courageous efforts of whistleblowers, serious cases of wrongdoing, including corruption and malpractice, have been brought to the attention of the public. Members may recall the notable case of Katharine Gun, a GCHQ employee who, in 2003, leaked top secret information to The Observer newspaper in an attempt to prevent the Iraq war. Although the leaking of this information did not ultimately stop the war, it put an end to the prospects of a second UN resolution authorising the invasion and prompted worldwide condemnation of the actions of the US intelligence community. If Members have not already done so, I greatly encourage them to watch the film “Official Secrets”, which documents Ms Gun’s remarkable whistle- blowing story.
Many of us will also remember the repeated instances of physical and psychological abuse perpetrated by staff at Winterbourne View. These horrific crimes were only exposed when the BBC’s “Panorama” programme took up the investigations after previous allegations made by a senior nurse at the hospital were dismissed by the Care Quality Commission. The subsequent serious case review into Winterbourne View revealed hundreds of previous incidents at the hospital and warnings that were missed. This whistleblowing not only led to the criminal conviction of 11 individuals, six of whom were subsequently jailed, but to the closure of the hospital and—importantly—it put an end to the shocking abuse at that site of some of the most vulnerable people in society. In both the cases that I have cited so far, the whistleblowers believed that they had a moral duty to expose wrongdoing in the institutions that they worked in and their stories serve to highlight how whistleblowing can bring about fundamental and positive change.
It was made evident at an NHS roundtable earlier this week, which I had the honour of chairing, that although whistleblowers are protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, many individual whistleblowers commonly face an uphill battle to be heard in the first place, and they can then encounter discrimination from colleagues and employers once allegations are made. We heard a very moving story from a nurse about the impact that her actions had had. She not only lost her job but her whole family were impacted. Indeed, the overall impact was so severe that she seriously considered taking her own life. We cannot let that happen to anybody who is trying to make things better for other people.
Professor Emmanouil Nikolousis was previously a clinical director at University Hospitals Birmingham, where he led a review into potential malpractice. At the roundtable, he detailed how he was bullied out of his post by senior NHS managers in 2020. This was because the findings of his report included details of how repeated breakdowns in communication between doctors at the trust had led to some patients dying without receiving appropriate care. Professor Nikolousis is now calling for a full inquiry into the trust, with his own story demonstrating why more needs to be done to protect whistleblowers.
However, the positive news is that increasingly organisations such as the NHS are moving to implement policies that help and support their employees to speak out, although I know that more still needs to be done. The freedom to speak up policy aims to ensure that everyone working within the NHS feels sufficiently safe and confident to speak up, as well as encouraging leaders within the organisation to take the opportunity to learn from those who speak up and improve matters.
These organic policies, such as the freedom to speak up, should, in combination with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, give employees confidence that they will be treated fairly and fully supported when they raise concerns about malpractice. It has been quite evident today and throughout the week that the measures we have are not working, and we need to go further. When it comes to legislative and regulatory protections for whistleblowers, the UK currently lags far behind many other countries, including those in the EU, in imposing new and severe penalties on companies that either obstruct whistleblowers or fail to keep their identity confidential, as we have already heard. It is clear, not least from the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and by Baroness Kramer, that both Houses of Parliament want to do more and that there is an appetite to protect whistleblowers.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments at the end of the debate, and I urge the Government to introduce the necessary legislation to protect whistleblowers further and ensure that the types of serious cases that we have heard about today and throughout the week continue to be exposed in the public interest.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Like others, I want to start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for introducing the debate. She is nothing if not tenacious and persistent, and she should be sincerely applauded for that.
I want to start with a very short history lesson. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle alluded to, my predecessor was the late Richard Shepherd, the former Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills. Sir Richard had a record of defending whistleblowers and fighting for transparency, as well as of campaigning on many other things. Back in 1997, believe it or not, he was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and he introduced the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. With cross-party support, it was enacted in 1998, and is now referred to as PIDA. That was almost 25 years ago. We could stand here and argue that Sir Richard’s Act of Parliament is one of the very few pieces of legislation to have stood the test of time with very little change. However, I think most present, if not all, would argue differently. I am hoping that the Minister is on board, given his knowledge and expertise in this field of policy from before he became a Minister.
As we have heard, 2023 will mark the first Whistleblowing Awareness Week in the UK. This week, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle having secured the debate, we have an opportunity to raise awareness and debate this really important issue, and to highlight some of the many whistleblowing cases. Many cases make it into the public domain——we have heard this week from the Casey review—but many others do not. Important acts of whistleblowing help to keep us all safe.
Legislative change is needed now more than ever before. As I have said, we often think of the high profile cases that make the newspapers and are turned into fascinating films and documentaries, yet the truth is that, 25 years since the Act was passed, too many people are still not protected—from job applicants to volunteers, to name just a couple of groups. Too many who speak out suffer victimisation. Those who do not probably fear it.
As we have heard, there is clearly an appetite in Parliament to do something and to take action. In April last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle introduced her ten-minute rule Bill on whistleblowing; alas, it ran out of time, as sadly often happens with ten-minute rule Bills and private Member’s Bills, as I know only too well. In June 2022, a private Member’s Bill was introduced in the other place called the Protection for Whistleblowing Bill. It had its Second Reading in December last year, and I think we all hope that it will continue to make good progress.
My hon. Friend has long campaigned for change and for protection for whistleblowers. She has articulated today, through her words and through the examples that she has shared with us, how much knowledge she has on this particular topic, and how much evidence and appetite there is for that change. It is time to make it easier for concerned employees, contractors and stakeholders to raise a concern. It is time to encourage employees to speak up by offering them confidentiality and options for reporting. It is also time to set minimum standards for whistleblowing policies.
It takes a very brave person—a hugely courageous person—to be a whistleblower. Often it takes just one, and others will follow. That first person has to be incredibly brave to report certain types of wrongdoing or to reveal information about activity within an organisation that is deemed illegal. When that is done properly, when the right protections are in place, whistleblowing can be positive and can lead to the much-needed change, betterment and improvement from which so many will benefit.
It is time to make whistleblowing a tool for business improvement and safeguarding, and to step back from the “who” and focus much more on the “what”. I support my hon. Friend seeks legislative change—changes to the framework, and changes that start to drive the buy-in of organisations. Those organisations need to be nudged to take up the responsibility, and to be responsible for driving forward buy-in from their employees by encouraging and developing what I would call a healthy culture, which means that when a person needs to speak up it is possible to do so, that they are listened to and that what they say is acted on.
Equally, there must be protections for those organisations against vexatious whistleblowing. I acknowledge that there is a slight balance and nuance that must be addressed, too. None the less, whistleblowing can have a real value when it is viewed as good for business and good for organisations. The 2019 report of the all-party group for whistleblowing concluded that whistleblowing
“can help prevent harm to the fundamental values of society, including individual rights and liberties, justice, health, economic prosperity and stability”.
The Government have committed to review the whistle- blowing framework. May I gently urge the Minister to get on with it, please? In doing so, perhaps he could also consider the point that my hon. Friends have raised about the Government Department in which this should sit. Is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy the best place for it? Perhaps, given that it is such an overarching issue, it would be better placed in the Cabinet Office.
Whistleblowing must be seen through the prism of keeping us all safe. It is good for business, good for organisations and good for society, but it also needs to work for the individual, so we must protect whistleblowers from being victimised. We should seek to work together with the Minister to deliver that cultural change. That will then start to make the difference that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and so many others are seeking to achieve.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Martin Docherty-Hughes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. Let me first thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for gaining this debate today and also thank her and the secretariat of the all-party group for whistle- blowing for their hard work.
Before I proceed with my speech, I wish to touch on one thing that the hon. Member mentioned, which is the notion of what an employee is. I hope the Minister and the Government will take that on board. For example, before I came to this House in 2015, I had worked as an employee in the voluntary sector in my own constituency and community of West Dunbartonshire for more than a decade. I am keenly aware of—I do not want to say “work” here—the voluntary activity that delivers public services, and also private business, if someone is seeking to gain experience, in all of our communities. I hope the Minister hears what the hon. Lady and the all-party group are saying about that issue, because volunteers can be some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They include not just those who have retired and want to do something active in later life, or those gaining additional experience, for example in the health service—not just in trusts but on boards in Scotland—but some of the most vulnerable people in society. Having a broader definition, such as “an individual service provider”, might assist the Government.
The SNP is clear that whistleblowing is crucial to a free and open democratic society. It is an integral part of exposing crime, corruption and cover-ups, and a pillar supporting transparency. A democratic and just society, I am sure all Members agree, has a duty to create a culture in which speaking up is valued and in which people who try to silence whistleblowers or suppress evidence of wrongdoing face the full force of the law.
I congratulate those who have brought about Whistle-blowing Awareness Week, which is an opportunity to celebrate people who speak out on workplace issues, call out corruption and expose criminal actions. It is only right that we recognise that whistleblowers are an important check on power structures in Government—and, indeed, in our own political parties, the media, business and other areas. We saw that during the pandemic; the consequences played out in Parliament this week. The issues relating to the Met are not just for it to think about, but for wider society.
As a tech geek, I am mindful of the investigative journalists who revealed the Cambridge Analytica story—remember them? Whistleblowers such as Chris Wylie and Brittany Kaiser divulged the global extent of data manipulation on digital platforms, and shifted conversations about data rights and political malpractice to the top of the public and political agenda. Like many whistleblowers, such individuals are vulnerable to retaliation for their actions. Although there are laws in place to protect them, sometimes those laws are not adequate or effective in their application.
Such individuals always seem to rise to the challenge and face the threats made against them. A Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, revealed that hateful political ads are five times cheaper for customers—it has been referred to as subsidising hate. She did that with 22,000 pages secretly copied from company documents that proved her claims. She provided evidence here in Westminster and in the United States Congress. She said:
“I think the part that informed my journey was: You have to accept when you whistle-blow like this that you could lose everything. You could lose your money, you could lose your freedom, you could alienate everyone who cares about you. There’s all these things that could happen to you. Once you overcome your fear of death, anything is possible. I think it gave me the freedom to say: Do I want to follow my conscience?”
I have to say, I am glad Frances did.
The National Crime Agency’s annual fraud indicator estimates fraud losses to the UK at about £190 billion every year. The private sector is hit the hardest, losing about £140 billion. The public sector loses more than £40 billion, and individual civilians lose about £7 billion.
The SNP believes that whistleblowing laws ought to be reformed, as the hon. Member for Cheadle said, to better protect whistleblowers calling out bad actors. With Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the UK became the first EU country, as it was then, to introduce new whistleblowing legislation. It was heralded as a watershed moment, and expectations were high, given that whistle- blowing was now seen as legitimate, but we know that employers may be better protected now by placing a gagging clause on workers—a clause in an employment contract or a compromise agreement that purports to prohibit a worker from disclosing information about their current or former workplace. A compromise agreement is a contract concluded at the end of an employment relationship that seeks to prevent further disputes. Typically, it is accompanied by a payment to a worker.
According to the very good work of the all-party group for whistleblowing:
“Whistleblowers in general remain the subject of suspicion and scepticism and while organisations and official bodies sing the merits of whistleblowing and parade their policies and procedures, the lived experience of whistleblowers remains poor. For those who embark upon a legal remedy the chance of success is less than 10%, the personal cost in financial terms is beyond the means of most people and the physical and mental cost untold.”
There is therefore, as the all-party group says, an
“urgent need to completely rethink UK whistleblowing law and make it fit for the 21st century.”
The all-party group argues for a whistleblowing Bill, which the SNP would support. As the hon. Member for Cheadle has already said, the Bill would define whistleblowers and whistleblowing in law. It would properly and clearly set out the duties of relevant persons and establish an office of the whistleblower with the responsibility to uphold the rights of whistleblowers, but also to set, monitor and enforce the new standards. The Bill proposes a multi-level, multi-stakeholder approach to emphasise the value of whistleblowers and the crucial role they play in a healthy society. I call on the Government to heed the calls of not only the all-party parliamentary group, but the hon. Member for Cheadle.
I will end on the issue of volunteers. If Government Ministers require briefings, for example from the national body of volunteering in Scotland, Volunteer Scotland, I am sure it would help. There will be many people across all these islands who would look to extend whistleblowing legislation to cover those who deliver public service as well as sometimes giving up their free time to deliver private wealth.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms McDonagh, and to speak on this important issue during the first Whistleblowing Awareness Week, which was launched in Parliament on Monday. I am pleased to add my voice to calls for organisations to change and for people to have the courage to come forward. There should be no fear or cover-up in organisations, and we need to look at how we change the law to enable and support that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on securing the debate. There is no greater champion in Parliament for the protection of whistle- blowers. We now also have colleagues in the Lords, whom we have mentioned today, who are taking forward the call for stronger legislation. I support the hon. Lady’s argument that UK standards should also be global standards. I thank WhistleblowersUK for its relentless advocacy in this space. I encourage everyone to be involved as much as possible in any remaining programmes and activity this week. I am sure that Whistleblowing Awareness Week will be an annual event; it is vital to keep a focus on the issue and keep Parliament’s mind focused on not just legislation, but perhaps how well that new legislation could be working. It was a pleasure to speak alongside WhistleblowersUK chief executive Georgina Halford-Hall at the start of the week, with the Minister also present at the event.
Most importantly, as I am sure the whole House and all who are present will agree, those in most need of our thanks this week are the whistleblowers themselves, for the extraordinary risks they take and the great sacrifices they make to uphold justice, transparency and accountability, in this country and internationally. It is clear from the contributions today that that sentiment is felt across the House.
The hon. Member for Cheadle laid out some of the new insights that were shared at roundtables this week and spoke about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. There were also important contributions from the hon. Members for Bury North (James Daly) and for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who has her very own constituency connection to the passing of PIDA 25 years ago. The right hon. Lady called for clarity and, perhaps, more urgency on the Government’s next steps. I acknowledge and support the arguments made by colleagues and the connection with the harrowing Casey report that is out this week and is very much a part of all our lives, particularly those of us who are London Members of Parliament. I also thank the hon. Member for Erewash for chairing roundtables at some of the events this week. SNP colleagues have also been supportive, not just today but during the ongoing debates on the issue.
The importance of whistleblowing in upholding transparency in opaque institutions and exposing law-breaking cannot be underestimated, whether that is regarding sexual abuse scandals, Grenfell, economic and financial crime, financial institutions, the police, Government Departments, sporting organisations, religious institutions or large multinational corporations—the list goes on. In every single one, at some point, whistleblowers have been responsible, sometimes solely, for drawing attention to wrongdoing and for bringing justice.
I reiterate the comments of the hon. Member for Cheadle on economic crime, an area in which I worked closely with the Minister, on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. The National Crime Agency estimates that fraud costs the UK economy £190 billion each year, including £40 billion to the public sector. Between 43% and 47% of serious economic crimes are exposed by whistleblowers. The numbers show the huge scale of the issue, the huge role that whistleblowers play in exposing economic crime, and the impact they could have on our economy, if they were granted more protection under legislation.
One example is the Danske Bank money laundering scheme, where criminals took advantage of UK limited liability partnerships. It was a whistleblower that exposed the $230 billion economic crime operation, halting a stream of Russian money laundering.
That is why better protection of whistleblowers is so important—because, in so many cases, they are the first line of defence. They deserve greater legal protections than they currently receive. Multiple Ministers have promised us that change is coming, but that is not a message currently commanding the greatest of confidence. The Minister is likely to say that he is reviewing the whistleblowing framework and moving forward as soon as possible. That is an area on which we have common ground.
James Daly
The hon. Member is making some valid points. As parliamentarians, we could come up with new legislation that could give new protections. The problem is that if certain organisations have toxic cultures, no matter what the legal protections are, people are intimidated and will not come forward. That is where the issue is, no matter the legislation. The Met is one example, but there are others. I wonder what she feels we can do on institutionalised attitudes.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member raises a significant point, which I alluded to in my comments on the speech by the hon. Member for Cheadle. This issue needs serious leadership, commitment and accountability for change. The debates we have had in Parliament on the Casey report are some examples. Transparency and accountability at the very top really do matter.
When the Government bring forward measures, this is an area on which we will have common ground. The Minister knows we will support the Government on those measures, but I hope he will also understand that we want to see measures brought forward more quickly than is apparent at the moment—perhaps he will speak to that that in his remarks—because whistleblowers are being let down by inaction.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was referred to in the debate, was initially celebrated as groundbreaking. Now, only 4% of people who bring claims under its provisions succeed. There are arguments that it effectively discourages whistleblowing, and there are questions now about its scope. Independent data shows an overall decline in whistleblower reports across the public and private sectors, and reports of harassment against those threatening to whistleblow are increasing. That is utterly unacceptable.
Last year the International Bar Association, as has been mentioned, conducted the first review of its kind to assess countries with whistleblower legislation against compliance with international best practice. The UK ranked only 12th out of 16 countries. As the APPG for whistleblowing, chaired by the hon. Member for Cheadle, highlights in its recent report,
“Whistleblowers in general remain the subject of suspicion and scepticism and while organisations and official bodies sing the merits of whistleblowing and parade policies and procedures the lived experience of whistleblowers remains poor.”
It is clear that much more needs to be done if we are to adequately protect whistleblowers and ensure greater transparency in our public and private institutions. That is why during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill through the Commons, both in Committee and on Report, the Labour party supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cheadle, which would have established an office of the whistleblower. That happens in the United States, so why not here?
The office would protect whistleblowers from detriment, ensure that disclosures by whistleblowers are investigated, and escalate information and evidence of wrongdoing outside of its remit to another appropriate authority. The objectives of the office would be to encourage and support people to make whistleblowing reports, to provide an independent, confidential and safe environment for making and receiving whistleblowing information, to provide information and advice on whistleblowing, and to act on evidence of detriment. As the hon. Member for Cheadle raised on Report, there is evidence that an office of whistleblowers incentivises and increases disclosures.
In 2020 the International Bar Association tested countries with whistleblowing legislation against a list of 20 best practices. The UK met just five. Meanwhile, the United States, which has an Office of the Whistleblower, met 16, and that office received 12,300 disclosures in 2022, nearly double the number of 2020.
The Labour Front Bench will join cross-party calls in Parliament to increase protections for whistleblowers at a time when it could not be needed more. I hope the Government will say more today about the steps that they will take. I note that during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill through the Commons the Security Minister said he agreed with the need for an office of the whistleblower. His exact words were:
“what the country needs is an office for whistleblowers, and what we need to do is ensure that we have the updates to the legislation that she”—
the hon. Member for Cheadle—
“so correctly highlighted.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 1094.]
So I ask the Minister: what progress have the Government made in carrying out that latest commitment?
I seek assurances from the Minister that action is on its way—not just a commitment to having a review, but genuine action. I look forward to his response and hope that the Government will get a grip of what is an important issue and make sure that there is support for whistleblowers and for the sacrifices that they make every day to uphold justice and transparency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for all the work that she does on the all-party group. As she rightly points out, I was formerly the co-chair with her on that group. We can sometimes move from a Back-Bench position where we speak about an issue that we feel strongly about, and then we can be put in a ministerial position that covers that brief, but I can reassure Members that I am as ambitious as ever to make sure we get the right reforms for whistleblowing.
My hon. Friend had a reception, which I was pleased to attend. She has had a number of events this week, and I pay tribute to her for her work in drawing attention to the importance of whistleblowers for our society. Whistleblowers are clearly the eyes and ears of our organisations, in terms of potential wrongdoing. As my hon. Friend knows, I have had a number of experiences with constituents. Ian Foxley blew the whistle on GPT Special Project Management, and did an incredible job. Paul Moore blew the whistle at HBOS prior to its financial distress and collapse. Sally Masterton was the whistleblower of the HBOS Reading scandal, which took five years to reach court, where she was vindicated for her statements.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) referenced Danske Bank, and the £234 billion of money laundering. She is right to talk about some of the UK corporate vehicles used for that. We are working together on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to tighten up the opportunities people have to use those vehicles. One of the biggest scandals in that case was Danske Bank allowing that to happen on its watch. Howard Wilkinson was the whistleblower; the £234 billion of Russian money washing through Danske Bank in Estonia resulted in a $2 billion fine from the US authorities.
According to the statistics, 43% of economic crimes are highlighted by whistleblowers, but in my experience, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle stated, it is much higher than that. Every case of economic crime I have dealt with has come from a whistleblower, and I pay tribute to them. It is not just financial crime; my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) highlighted issues with the Met police, which might have been brought to light much sooner if people had felt more confident about the whistleblowing framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) talked about Winterbourne View; that also might have come to light much sooner, with people being brought to justice much sooner, if people had more confidence.
It is right that we seek to more effectively protect and compensate whistleblowers for doing the right thing. It is excellent that we have so many top-quality parliamentarians in this debate who will throw their weight behind the campaign for change. I am keen to do so too.
Our whistleblowing framework was introduced through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It was intended to build openness and trust in workplaces by ensuring that workers can hold their employers to account, and are then treated fairly. It provides a route for workers to make disclosures of wrongdoing, including criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice, or a breach of any legal obligation. Disclosures usually need to be made to the employer, a lawyer or a prescribed person. Workers who believe they have been dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated for making a protected disclosure can make a claim to an employment tribunal, which can award unlimited compensation.
Workers are often the first people to witness any type of wrongdoing within an organisation. Information that workers may uncover could prevent wrongdoing that may damage an organisation’s reputation or performance, and, in extreme circumstances, even save people from harm or death. In relation to whistleblowing protections, the standard employment law definition of a worker has been extended, and includes a wide range of employment relationships, such as agency workers; individuals under -taking work experience; self-employed doctors, dentists and pharmacists in the NHS; job applicants in the health sector; police officers; and student nurses and student midwives.
I fully understand that there are people who are not protected by the current legislation. Indeed, Ian Foxley was not covered by the legislation, and suffered hundreds of thousands of pounds of detriment for blowing the whistle. He spent 11 years without any employment, and he was a well-paid contractor prior to that time.
Kevin Hollinrake
Protected from detriment. In Ian Foxley’s case, he feared for his life. It could be detriment in terms of loss of employment. There are a number of different detriments. Both protection and compensation should be fairly made.
James Daly
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, there is a 4% success rate at employment tribunal. Those protections do not seem to be translating into ones that are enforceable in an employment tribunal, which is the problem.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will come on to what we are trying to do to make the legislation more effective. Do I think the legislation is where it needs to be today? No, I do not. That is the case for the changes we need to make. We need to look at all the different evidential points to ensure we move to the right place. Ian Foxley was a contractor, which is why he did not have the opportunity to get compensation in his case.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a good point about volunteers. They may also be the eyes and ears we need. He made the alarming point that people who blow the whistle could lose everything, which all of us should take into account. People who clearly do not feel they will be properly protected or properly compensated should feel more assured that they will.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) pointed to the fact that the legislation was implemented 25 years ago by one of her predecessors. To give some reassurance, since the introduction of that legislation, the Government have continued to strengthen some of its provisions using non-legislative and legislative measures. We have produced guidance for whistleblowers and prescribed persons, as well as guidance and a code of practice for employers. We have produced guidance on how whistleblowers can make disclosures.
In 2017, we introduced a new requirement for most prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures made to them. That duty is a direct response to concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding how disclosures were being handled. Most prescribed persons are now required to report on the number of disclosures, state whether they decided to take further action and give a summary of any action taken. We have also expanded the list of prescribed persons—the individuals and bodies to whom a worker can blow the whistle. In December 2022, I took forward some legislation to add six new bodies and all Members of the Scottish Parliament to the prescribed persons order. We continue to welcome proposals for appropriate additions to that order.
Wendy Morton
I appreciate that there have been updates to the original 1998 Act, and I recognise that work needs to continue. I want to push the Minister on the review. Will he give us any timescale or any indication of when we will see the Government undertake further work in the light of some of the thoughts, ideas and recommendations from the APPG?
Kevin Hollinrake
I was just coming on to that. As a former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend will be familiar with a word we often hear in this place: soon. I will say very, very soon. It is fair to say that we talking about days, not months. We are closer to days than months; that is where I would say we are.
Many have spoken passionately today, and on previous occasions, about the experiences of whistleblowers, and raised concerns about the whistleblowing framework. As I said, the Government have committed to reviewing the framework. It is clearly a major priority of mine, and it has been since I joined the Department. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the important point that while we must ensure we protect the right people, we do not want to allow for vexatious whistleblowers because that could have a detrimental impact on businesses and other organisations. It is important that we protect those who should be protected.
Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, we must protect the people who would have blown the whistle had they had confidence in the framework. That is one of the big problems here. People are not coming forward because of their concerns and because of what has happened to other whistleblowers. That includes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned, Jonathan Taylor, who blew the whistle in the oil scandal and was pretty much under house arrest for a year in Croatia. That was disgraceful treatment.
As I said, making progress on the review has been a priority of mine from day one. There will be an announcement on that very, very soon. That is what we are expecting. We are keen to engage with parliamentarians from across the House, both here and in the other place. Once that review is announced, I am keen to engage particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle so she can make her points about the right way forward in terms of the provisions we need to make and future changes to legislation.
My hon. Friend talked about the policyholder for this particular brief and whether it should be the Department for Business and Trade or the Cabinet Office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suggested. I am very keen to keep it under my auspices, because, as Members have said in the debate today, I have a long-standing interest in this particular area. I am very keen and ambitious for it, so I am keen to keep hold of it. However, it is right to point out that it is the legislation around whistleblowing and employment that is held with me. Of course, the particular issues around Departments—the whistleblowing requirements—are held by each individual Department. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash will confirm, whistleblowing in the NHS is very much a matter for the Department for Health and Social Care. That is the right situation regarding this particular policy.
Wendy Morton
From my experience as a Minister, I know how whistleblowing policy does cut into other Departments. I understand the Minister’s passion and willingness to drive this policy forward, but looking to the future, in whatever work he is doing can he really ensure that it embraces all of Government? That is why I was pointing towards the Cabinet Office.
Kevin Hollinrake
I quite understand my right hon. Friend’s point and why she made it. My view, both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister, is that we need to work more on a cross-Government basis than perhaps we do now to make sure that these kinds of measure are properly implemented across Government.
A number of Members, including the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, talked about NDAs. As he will know, being a member of the legal fraternity—
Kevin Hollinrake
No? I thought the hon. Gentleman was.
In law, NDAs cannot be used to prevent a worker from blowing the whistle, so there are some protections in law in that respect. I believe the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, also brought out that point.
Mary Robinson
On NDAs being used to prevent a worker from blowing the whistle, the Minister is quite right to make that point, but of course another point to consider is when a person blows the whistle, an employment dispute might arise that could be the subject of a case that goes to law, or lead to that person being dismissed from their job. At that point, the person might accept an NDA, so the harm that was being reported and brought to light in the first place is thereby effectively covered up.
Kevin Hollinrake
That brings me to my next point. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but the employment tribunal is there to settle compensation. It is the regulators in the various sectors that are there to look at the problem, the detriment, and to consider the whistleblowing concerns and act on them. That cannot be restricted by an NDA in that kind of compensation settlement, I think.
What I regard as the key point in my hon. Friend’s contribution today is the proposal for an office of the whistleblower. I quite understand that the intent is to provide one central place for whistleblowing and to make sure that we have best practice across the piece. Such an office would provide consistency in standards for regulatory investigations triggered by whistleblowing information. I am also interested in the issues that dealing with whistleblowing disclosures might raise for the prescribed persons, and vice versa.
I know there are concerns, not just in Government but in wider circles, about how such an office would interact with the role of regulators, who are experts, of course. It is important that we look at the arguments for and against the proposed office, and I am keen to look at international examples. My hon. Friend referred to the USA. The numbers of disclosures there are interesting. According to my figures, there were 50,000 protected disclosures in the UK in 2020-21. I think my hon. Friend said that 20,000 were dealt with by the Office of the Whistleblower in the US, which is obviously a much bigger country in terms of population and potential whistleblowing. I am interested in the gap.
One point to make is that a UK office of the whistleblower would of course need extensive resources to be able to handle or to oversee 50,000 protected disclosures, and significant expertise to ensure that it fully understood the nature of the problem and was able to work alongside the regulators, which I think is what my hon. Friend envisages, rather than replace the regulators in terms of their functions. Clearly, regulators themselves, be it the FCA or the regulators in the NHS, would have a responsibility to ensure that the issues were addressed properly and whistleblowing guidelines and processes were followed. It is a question of understanding the interaction between the two and what resources would be needed to fully and properly fund an office of the whistleblower.
All these matters need to be taken into account in deciding how to proceed. The review, as I have said, is something that we want to bring forward very quickly, and we want hon. Members on both sides of the House to be able to input into it.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Will the Minister assure hon. Members that in the review he will take cognisance of the question about what an employee delivering a service is? The millions of volunteers across these islands need reassurance. They need to be protected and given the ability to be a whistleblower within the system.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, which I think was referred to earlier. Some of the whistleblowers I have dealt with were outside the current legislation because of their employment status, so I think that it is a very fair point and it is one that we are very keen to explore through the review.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle again for initiating this very important debate. We are in complete agreement: there should be no doubt that to blow the whistle is an act of real value to both business and society at large. Government, including my Department, will continue to examine and make reforms to the whistleblowing regime, and we will be setting out details of the review of the whistleblowing framework very soon.
Mary Robinson
It has been a pleasure to be here today. I thank everybody for taking part and joining me today during Whistleblowing Awareness Week. It was a particular pleasure to me when, at the start of the week, I was joined by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), at the launch and we had unanimity. It is a rare thing in this place to have everybody singing from the same hymn sheet, political though it may be. I hope that that will lead us to some success.
I am reassured by the Minister’s words regarding the review. It is probably the first time that I have heard “very, very soon”, rather than “soon” or “shortly”. [Hon. Members: “Days!”] Exactly—we got it down to “days”. I was going to press for the hours as well, but I will not. The important thing is that this is moving forward.
I thank everybody who has taken part in today’s debate. There have been so many powerful interventions and contributions. From the discussions about the Met police force and the GMP issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), we know that this is not just about business—about that one sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who chaired the roundtable this week, talked about the issues in the NHS, and we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), whose predecessor brought forward the legislation that is at the heart of our discussion today and the changes that we want to make.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), rightly took on the key aspect, which is that this is not just about employees; it needs to spread to other people. He gave us pause for thought when he referred to the whistleblower who said, “Be prepared to lose everything.” That is what we are trying to fight against. I hope we can take forward the legislation in a robust way, so that during every Whistleblowing Awareness Week we have in the future, as I hope we will, we will be talking positively about the work we have done and the changes that have been made in response to people in organisations who wanted to make those changes.
It cannot be right that a person goes to work every day in fear of saying the right thing. It cannot be right that people’s lives are put at risk by organisations where the culture of fear is so inherent that people within them cannot speak out. It cannot be right that people risk losing their job, their livelihood and sometimes their home, their family and their relationships because they do the right thing. I would like to think that we will all be encouraging the Government to do the right thing for whistleblowers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Whistleblowing Awareness Week.
Support for Women in Poverty
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of support for women in poverty.
First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place. We are indebted to that Committee for all that it does. It is these debates that enable us as MPs to bring issues to the House for consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) was meant to lead this debate, but unfortunately she had to go home for a pressing engagement. As we applied for the debate together, we decided that I should lead the debate on her behalf.
People in every constituency can associate with this issue and fully understand the difficulties and intricacies involved. When my sister Joy decried the lack of help around the house from her brothers, including me, my mother would often say that a woman’s lot in life is what it is. My mother accepted the fact that she worked her fingers to the bone in the shop in Ballywalter we had from the ’60s through to the ’80s, and ran her home. What is more, she revelled in that role. My mother today is a very, very fresh 91-year-old who still tells her biggest son what to do and when to do it. She also gives me her clinical opinion on everything that happens in this place, because she is really, really with it when it comes to what is happening. She is a very capable lady who has thrived on hard work all of her days.
As time has progressed, the expectations placed upon people’s shoulders have escalated beyond bearing. I wish to outline the issues faced by all women. I will speak from the honest perspective of a man, while also reflecting the opinions and views of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann. It should not be that a woman has to accept a substandard quality of life in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as so many do, and changes must be implemented now.
Let me talk about what we are doing in Ards, North Down and Strangford. The Ards community rural network has recently opened a women and family hub at 55 Francis Street, just up the road from my own office. I was really pleased to see it, because it focuses attention on the issues of women, children and families in my constituency. The Ards network has also done a lot of research into the prevalence of poverty in everyday life across Ards and North Down.
The network has collected some lived experiences, which include those of people who live alone and lone parents. Let me give Members an example that I was given the other day in preparation for this debate. A lady called in to see us; she was contemplating whether it was better to give up her job as a classroom assistant because she would be £700 better off if she did so. That is the reality for a woman living in poverty in the United Kingdom, in my constituency of Newtonards.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Nine out of 10 single parents are women. The median gross weekly pay for male single parents is £340, but for women it is £194.40. It cannot be denied that a key factor is gender, as women in general are more likely to be paid less or have to work part time. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Government are not looking at the big picture of why women are more likely to live in persistent poverty? A variety of factors influences their income.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the statistics from Northern Ireland reflect that. They indicate that what she said is factual and regularly happens to a lot of people.
In Newtownards, we have been working with the Department for Communities and the Northern Ireland Assembly on a women’s development programme. The things that we are doing in my constituency are positive and proactive, and will hopefully lead to the progress that we need.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in her place; we look forward to her response. The two shadow spokespeople will, as always, contribute in a very positive fashion and help us to get results from the Minister. I applied for this debate not because I was reminiscing about my childhood with my mum, who was a very, very strong character, but because my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann drew my attention to the issue. We hope it will grasp the attention of Members who can drive for change.
Let me outline some of the facts, which reflect individually and corporately the issues that women in the UK face. Among those who die at working age, 28% of women spend their last year of life below the poverty line compared with 26% of men. Of those who die at pension age, 14% of women spend their last year of life in poverty, compared with 11% of men. That shows another inequality between men and women: women have the greater pain in their last days.
For women in the last year of their life the risk of being in poverty rises by a third compared with women in the general population. Working-age women are three times as likely to be in part-time employment as men. That is a fact of life; I experience it every day in my office and in my advice centre in Strangford. Women are also disproportionately represented in low-paid jobs. More than a quarter of women in work earn less than the real living wage, compared with just 16% of men. As a result, if they lose their job or give up their work, nearly two thirds of working-age women have savings that would last a month or less, and a third have savings that would last less than a week. Women unfortunately do not that much to fall back on. They make very good use of the money that they have, but they do not have that wee bit extra—that wee bit of cream to get them through the harder times. That increases the poverty risk among working-age women in their last years of life.
I will pause for a second to give a Northern Ireland perspective. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective in debates because it helps to formulate opinion, and helps the Minister and shadow Ministers to add their contribution. The unemployment rate for males in Northern Ireland has been consistently higher than for females over the past 10 years. Although the number of employees in Northern Ireland was very evenly spread between males and females, the number of self-employed males was more than double the number of self-employed females, and males were more likely to work full time than females. Furthermore, approximately 60% of employed women with dependent children work full time, compared with 95% of males with dependent children.
The unemployment rate for males in Northern Ireland has been consistently higher than for females over the past 10 years, but the gap is narrowing. By 2019, 44% of unemployed people were female and 56% were male. It is almost like-for-like; that shows the trend. Over the past 10 years, there have been consistently more economically inactive women than men. In 2019, just under a third of working-age women were economically inactive, compared with just under a quarter of men.
The most common reason for inactivity among women was family and home commitments. That might be society, but, to be honest, from my point of view, when my wife and I got married, we always wanted children, so we had three children in the first five years of our married life and my decision, and Sandra’s decision, was to be with the children. She was a mother who looked after the home and the children, and she did it very well, whereas most of the time I was away from the house. That is probably a conducive factor in a good married life—we spent enough time apart to be able to spend the rest of the time together and not fall out.
The most common reason for inactivity for men was sickness or disability. Some 76% of women with dependent children were economically active compared with 92% of men. The lowest rates for women were those with young dependent children, of pre-school age. That reflects the experience in my society and constituency today. Women are more likely to have dependent children and childcare costs than men. I welcome the Government’s action in the Budget on childcare costs. It is really important that childcare support is increased and women are enabled to gain more active employment, right across the United Kingdom.
Marie Curie research has also shown that, UK-wide, working-age people with dependent children are more likely to experience poverty in their last years of life. Among pensioners, women have lower individual retirement incomes than men, reflecting lower average employment over their working lives and lower lifetime earnings than men, and a higher likelihood of having taken time out of the labour market or working part time to raise children. It is a fact of life, and it is again why the issue of women in poverty in the UK is so important.
Retired women are likely to be living closer to the poverty line than men are. This simply feels wrong. I ask the Minister what we are doing to help elderly women who are nearing the last years of their life and who are feeling the financial pressure. They are in the poverty bracket, and they may possibly have disabilities as well. Women aged over 70 in the UK are more than twice as likely as men to live alone, reflecting the average life expectancy of a lady. Living alone is associated with a higher risk of poverty among both the working-age and pension-age population. Some 29% of single pensioners experience poverty in the last years of life, compared with just 21% of pensioners living as a couple. These are the facts according to Marie Curie’s research, which is detailed and well evidenced.
The higher risk of poverty at the end of life for women of both working age and pension age is representative of the inequalities that have built up throughout their lives. These lifelong inequalities mean women are less well placed, on average, than men to bear the additional costs brought on by terminal illness. Many people of that age group who come to me have disabilities. I always point people to the benefits system—attendance allowance, pension credit and so on. We have a very good working relationship with the food bank in our area as well. Those are areas where we are able to help immediately and try to give assistance.
Inequalities persist and are magnified, with retired women’s risk of poverty at the end of life increasing at a higher rate than that of men. Marie Curie’s research also found that women and people from minoritised ethnic groups are more likely to experience poverty at the end of life than men or people from white ethnic groups. The evidential base is clear that ethnic groups are more likely to have those problems, and I ask the Minister for any further information.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has highlighted the well-established links between women’s experiences and their risk of developing a mental illness. For example, women are more likely to be on lower incomes, at risk of domestic abuse and have additional caring responsibilities. Almost always the lady of the house—the mum—is the carer. All of that increases the risk of developing a mental illness. Around one in five women experience a common mental disorder, such as anxiety or depression, compared with one in eight men, according to the most recent NHS adult morbidity survey. Despite this, there are still thousands of women and girls who struggle alone, and they could miss out on vital support as a result of that bias.
Margaret Ferrier
Poverty and food insecurity are not just about going hungry; as the hon. Gentleman said, there are knock-on effects on health and cognitive ability, and therefore educational attainment. People cannot concentrate on lessons or exams when they have not eaten all day, and that can be combined with the other factors that limit women’s chances of breaking out of poverty in adulthood. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must give due focus to how their benefits policies may perpetuate the poverty cycle?
Jim Shannon
I think they do, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister will answer our questions. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Hopefully, we will get an indication of what the Government are doing to address that.
The Department of Health and Social Care surveyed 100,000 women and found that 42% of women would not feel comfortable talking to a family member about their mental health condition, 36% would not feel comfortable doing so with a healthcare professional, and 30% with a friend. Young adults and women were more likely to report worse mental health and wellbeing during the first national lockdown than older adults and men.
Even before the pandemic hit, mental health services were not keeping up with demand. I ask the Minister: what has been done to improve mental health conditions, particularly for women in poverty? We must focus the resources on where the problems are. This debate is an opportunity to identify that. During the covid-19 crisis, school and nursery closures, and homeworking, became a great problem for women, and contributed to poverty, as the hon. Lady referred to. It also contributed to a greater risk of psychological distress.
Reductions in local authority budgets have meant that a disproportionate number of women have taken up roles as unpaid carers. Again, is there anything we can do to help unpaid carers? I know that the Minister has been working hard on matters of gender equality and will continue to do so, but I honestly feel that the burden of children falls mostly on women, not due to the system we are in but due to a mindset. I think there is a mindset. For instance, whenever Naomi, my office assistant, had to take her daughter for surgery, she got parenting leave while her husband went to work. Without stress, her contract allowed for that first week. That is what a caring employer would do. I did that, but not everyone does.
A lady who worked in the retail sector came to see me. Her daughter took sick, and she had to take annual leave, as sick pay would not kick in for four days. Those are issues of unfairness in the equalities system. I was able to do the right thing; perhaps, other employers were not. That lady then had to work Christmas and new year, as she did not have the time off. To me, that is evidence of a clear inequality and is something that we need to address.
The reality is that the toll of poverty on women can be seen in the most despicable of ways. This is rather a sad case, but it is a factual case, and I used it without any names as an example in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. A lady took out a loan with a local loan shark to replace her cooker. She came to my office in tears. She had paid £500 back for her £300 cooker and yet was defaulting, according to the loan shark, and had been told—this is rather difficult to say in this Chamber—that she could pay off her loan in another way. She came to me in desperation. I was able to step in and point her to the help that she needed at that time, but I often wonder how many others find themselves in that particular predicament and how many women in poverty have been forced to do unspeakable things by people in their own community. That must end.
These women are hard working. Their poverty is nothing to do with their choices; it is to do with their circumstances, and we must work in this House to alter those circumstances. It is about the help that we can give. I believe that the Government must consider “women in poverty” funds within communities and that we must ensure that this Minister and her portfolio are funded appropriately, which must translate to help on the ground for the low-income mother who faces in-work poverty; for the lady who is asked to debase herself to provide a cooker for her family—how hard that must be for that lady, and for us in this House to be aware of that; and for the ill lady who has worked all her life, but is not entitled to enough help to deal with her illness and bring her out of poverty.
I support the calls of Marie Curie, which are particularly relevant for women in poverty, to give all terminally ill people access to their state pension regardless of age. It cannot be right that people who are forced to give up work due to their condition are left significantly more at risk of poverty in their final months and years simply because they are not yet old enough to claim the state pension. On average, terminally ill people in working age have made 24 years’ worth of qualifying national insurance contributions by their last year of life. The hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West have also spoken about the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women on many occasions; again, I feel we have an example of that. Research shows that the Government could deliver change on those pensions for just 0.1% of the annual state pension bill. I am ever mindful that this is not the Minister’s ultimate responsibility, so if she was able to send this matter on to the responsible Minister, I would very much appreciate it.
I conclude with this: the question of women in poverty is a real issue in the UK and the solution must be real. I encourage the Minister to liaise with her Cabinet colleagues to find other ways and find additional funding that makes its way straight on to the ground for those women in dire circumstances and make the future brighter for children in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, like my three granddaughters, who deserve the best that can be offered. I thank you, Mr Sharma, for giving me the opportunity to play a part in the delivery of that goal. I look forward to others’ contributions, and in particular the Minister’s response. I find that the Minister always genuinely tries to respond in a positive fashion. I think she grasps the issues. Today, I have hopefully—in a very stuttering way—been able to put forward the case for women in poverty across this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this debate forward; he is something of a legendary season ticket holder for Westminster Hall.
The ongoing cost of living crisis has no end in sight and is wreaking terrible damage on household incomes, families and even relationships across the United Kingdom. Particularly shameful is in-work poverty, when people are going out to work day in, day out and still cannot meet all the financial demands that they face.
We know that women are more likely to be living in poverty. They are more likely to be in lower-paid jobs, more likely than their male counterparts to be single parents, more likely to have caring responsibilities and even more likely to rely on social security. We also know that women are much more impacted by austerity measures, as they are more likely to rely to a greater degree on public services, which themselves are already under great pressure.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that families with younger children and lone-parent families, which are predominantly headed by women, face a disproportionate risk of poverty. Having younger children impacts on a parent’s ability to undertake paid work, the hours they can work and their pay, although it is important to say at this juncture that raising a child or children is work—something that often goes unrecognised.
Of course, women being able to undertake paid work when they have young children must be an option open to everyone who chooses to take it. Childcare has an important role to play here. Scotland is leading the way in childcare provision across the UK, although there is still more to do: there is no room for complacency. Scotland provides up to 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare a year—about 30 hours a week for three or four-year-olds, with some two-year-olds also eligible. In England, three and four-year-olds can access only around 570 free hours a year, which is about 15 hours a week.
We had a lot of fanfare around childcare in the recent Budget, but it does not really amount to much because it will be at least 18 months before it can happen and it was not accompanied by any detailed plan about increasing staff levels or infrastructure. Some people have said, quite cynically, that the reason for the announcement was less about substance than about what can be put on an election leaflet, which would be really sad if it were true.
The gender pay gap is another aspect that we need to think about when we are talking about women in poverty. It stands at around 15%, which widens dramatically when women have children. One way to close the gender pay gap—I know the Minister will be listening to this—is to mandate employers to report on the issue. It is, if you like Mr Sharma, effectively naming and shaming, putting the onus on employers to explain the gender pay gap in their organisations.
I am once again going to make a plea to the Minister to deliver a real living wage for workers, instead of the wee pretendy national living wage. It is both misnamed and misleading, since it is not based on the cost of living.
In addition to helping to support women in poverty, the UK Government must recognise that the policy of making single payments of universal credit to households can increase inequality in the welfare system and act as an enabler of domestic abuse or financial coercion. The Scottish Government continue to work with the UK Government to deliver split payments. I know that split payments are available in certain cases, but we really must ensure that we keep pushing so that it becomes the norm, so that we can protect more women financially.
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Economic abuse is a term that has only begun to creep into our vocabulary in recent years, and it is different from financial abuse because it is a restriction of access to resources alongside money, and disproportionately impacts women. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a great deal of work to be done to raise awareness of that problem, particularly for women who may be victims but do not realise?
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. Abuse becomes the norm for too many women if they have suffered it over many years, regardless of what form that abuse may take. So, yes, we really need to raise awareness. I think that automatic split payments for universal credit, unless otherwise specifically requested, is one of the ways that we could help to protect women from financial control.
I also ask the Minister to study closely the Scottish Government’s Scottish child payment, which is now delivering £25 per week, per child, for those on the lowest incomes. It is projected that it will lift 50,000 children out of poverty in 2023-24. It has been hailed as “a game changer” by anti-poverty charities, backed up, as it is, with £442 million of funding from the Scottish Government in the next financial year. While the Scottish Government are doing all they can to support household incomes—despite an increase in the block grant of a miserly 0.6%—they do so with one hand tied behind their backs, shackled, as they are, to this broken system.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there is also the gender pension gap. In old age, women are likely to be poorer than their male counterparts. Of course, that is easy to understand, because women are more likely to have had breaks in their working lives to raise children or undertake caring responsibilities, more likely to have been on low pay in their working lives, and more likely to have undertaken part-time work. As a result, women will suffer greater poverty in old age, living longer and suffering more years of poor health.
Age UK has shown that one in five women pensioners were living in poverty. Indeed, research shows that women, on average, would have to work an additional 16 years to retire with the same pension as men. Many of us have campaigned on the issue of the gender pension gap and are still waiting for the UK Government to expand auto-enrolment by removing the earnings threshold, a fairly simple step that would have an impact on women’s pensions.
We cannot talk about women in poverty without acknowledging the great injustice inflicted on women born in the 1950s, who were robbed of their pensions and had their retirement plans thrown into chaos when the retirement age was raised with little or no notice, depriving them of tens of thousands of pounds of their rightful pensions. I pay tribute to the dogged determination of the WASPI women to campaign against the injustice they have suffered. As a result of that injustice, many have been thrown into poverty after a lifetime of low pay. Many have faced financial ruin, and, worse, many have died due to ill health without ever receiving their rightful pension.
While we are debating women in poverty, it has to be said that there is a widespread view that the way in which those women have been cruelly treated would never have happened to men. The truth is that those women were seen as an easy target for a Government wishing to cut spending, which is shameful. The fact that a whole generation of women had their retirement age increased with little or no notice is beyond shocking. Alongside that came poverty, indignity and hardship, which those women will not easily forgive. It would never have happened to a whole generation of men.
There are a number of things that this Government could do, and I urge the Minister to work with the WASPI women to work out how they can be compensated when the ruling on the matter is made. There are a number of things that the Government could do to support women in poverty. They could do more, but they are not. The UK Government control 85% of welfare spending, so I urge the Minister to use her office to ensure that the powers that lie with the UK Government are used judiciously to support women living in poverty. I have set out some of the ways the Minister might consider doing that; I hope that she takes note.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. His regular appearances in this Chamber give us happiness, and we like to listen to him. It is good to be here again. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on her speech.
Let me begin by mentioning the anniversary, last week, of the birth of Margaret Bondfield, who was born on 17 March 1873. As you well know, Mr Sharma, Margaret Bondfield was our nation’s first woman to serve in the Cabinet. Her life serves as a reminder to us all of how important it is for women to take leadership roles in politics. She was born in the south-west of England, and she knew and understood poverty in rural parts of our country. She moved to Brighton, where she worked as a shop worker—just like many women today work in retail. She saw how women workers were treated and she could not put up with it. She did not want to see women continuing to earn their poverty with little opportunity for change.
Margaret Bondfield became part of what is now the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. She worked her way up to become the first woman president of the TUC, before becoming a Cabinet Minister. I mention her because her life is a lesson on how we can stop women being poor. First things first: I hope the Minister agrees with me that we should put women in charge. However, it is not just about women being in charge but about what we do in this place for women. Margaret Bondfield campaigned for maternity benefits for mothers when that was seen as at the fringe of British politics, yet here we are talking about women’s poverty as an important issue that we all, from whatever party, care about.
I would like to make a number of points, particularly on the structural underpinnings of women’s poverty. We have heard a lot of granular detail from other speakers about the position of women in Britain today. Being a woman is a risk factor for being poor. All that we do to try to improve the position of women in British society is about taking apart those risk factors.
The central risk factor and the reason why women are put at risk of being poor is the historical economic assumption that care is done for free. Women’s work looking after children, older members of the family and people who need care has traditionally been assumed to be done for free. As I say, all we do to try to prevent women from being poor is about making that assumption less certain. We all want to look after our families, but we should not assume that women should do this double duty of going out to work to earn an income and doing the caring for free. That is why over the years we have seen consensus that we need more and better childcare in this country, as well as much better adult social care.
Reflecting on the Budget, I think the Chancellor’s announcement on childcare is welcome. I could make all the political arguments in the world about it being too slow and not enough, and I will ask the Minister some questions about the role of the Department for Work and Pensions in developing childcare in this country, but I am glad to have a cross-party consensus that we need to build up our childcare system, make it effective and make it anti-poverty, so that it helps support people who are most likely to be poor so that they earn enough to have dignity and a good quality of life.
On childcare, I ask the Minister what role the DWP plays, because we know the Department has to change. The national minimum wage provides a floor below which nobody who is working for a living should fall, but unfortunately pay progression has absolutely stalled. When we think of where women are and about their ability to leave low-paid work, we see that pay progression is crucial for them. Has the DWP undertaken a study or analysed universal credit data to work out how it can play its part in developing a workforce strategy that will not only support all women in our workforce, but ensure that those who work in childcare are not at risk of poverty? The same is true for adult social care—it has to change. It can no longer be the case that women who cared for people who were suffering with covid or who, in many cases, died during the pandemic are the same women who are being paid poverty wages and are at risk of having to go to a food bank. That is not morally right, and I would love to know what work the DWP is doing to prevent that.
Women’s rights at work have to be better. We know this from the lives of Margaret Bondfield, Barbara Castle, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and all those women who, from positions of leadership, have improved women’s ability to earn. We want to see flexible working as a day one right. Having seen some of the evidence from the US of the impact of sexual harassment on women’s incomes, I would be interested to know what analysis the DWP has done on whether women’s lack of rights is holding back their earning abilities.
On the gender pay gap, it was absolutely galling to see companies applauding themselves for being part of International Women’s Day and producing self-aggrandising content, when what we want to see is their gender pay gaps closing. We do not want woman of the year awards; we want better annual pay awards. Again, there is cross-party consensus that gender pay gap reporting has been a good thing, but we need to go further, and I hope the Government will support that.
Finally, on retirement, we have a shared ambition to increase the take-up of pension credit, which was introduced by the Labour Government to recognise that some people would have small pension entitlements, and that should be recognised. No one should be poor because they worked hard. Will the Minister say something about that? The take-up of pension credit is better for couples and worse for single people of both genders. Do we have any analysis as to why that is, and what can we do about it? Whether it is a parent of a young child, a parent of a teenager, or a woman in retirement, we want to make sure that step by step we remove all of the structural factors that make a woman a risk factor for being poor. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is not here today, for securing this important debate. I followed the debate as a fellow Dolly Parton fan and it is a pleasure to engage on this matter. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) talked about happiness, and happiness is indeed Dolly Parton. Those who do not know what I am talking about should look at the early-day motion.
We are all here in Westminster Hall on a Thursday because we are passionate advocates of women’s rights and want to improve their lives. Like the hon. Member for Wirral South, I pay tribute to the many ladies before us who trailblazed and gave us the opportunity to be here. On behalf of the Government, I commit to continue to support women at all ages and career stages. I fully recognise that, as the hon. the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, supporting children is an important role. Family life and that support is important.
I hope to cover quite a lot of the questions—I am keen to make my speech, too—but I want to point out that over the last decade the gender pay gap has fallen from 19.6% to 14.9%, although I fully recognise that, as the hon. Member for Wirral South says, there is more to do. The percentage of women in employment has risen from 66.1% to 72.2%. In practice, that means 2 million more women in work since 2010. The Government have overseen increased numbers of women in full-time work and introduced shared parental leave. I absolutely believe in shared parental responsibility, supporting children and being there. We have doubled free childcare for eligible parents and passed our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to protect and support women and all those, including children, affected by that heinous crime. We will continue to build on that proud record of supporting women to provide a level playing field where everyone has fair and equal opportunities. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Wirral South.
On childcare and support for families, particularly for women, the Budget package for childcare has exceeded the expectations of many stakeholders. I welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Wirral South. I have spoken to many parents and visited nurseries. I also just met Save the Children. The increase of universal credit and childcare caps by around one third will help families, and those caps will continue to be uprated by the consumer prices index. I am meeting the Minister for Children, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), at the Department for Education next week, and I applaud the work that she has done.
The new free entitlements for working parents of young children can be used alongside the universal credit offer. That means full-time working parents on benefits across the country should not face childcare costs that exceed their free entitlements and caps. The DFE is also funding additional wraparound support for school-age children, and that can be used alongside universal credit. That is groundbreaking for those caring for children, and the reforms will revolutionise the amount of support that low-paid parents can receive.
We have spoken about some of those low-paid jobs and low-perceived sectors; the hon. Member for Wirral South made those points. It is really important that we tackle that issue. These are really important jobs that we particularly appreciated during the covid times—these people are doing the difficult jobs. It is really important that we support the people who go out, day in and day out, to do the difficult roles.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned mental health. He may have noted in the Budget that we will be embedding tailored employment support within mental health services and extending the well-established individual placement support scheme. That is really important. My hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is focused on this particular area and on carers. The Health and Safety Commission is also doing work in that area.
I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that in the approach we showed throughout the pandemic and our response to cost of living pressures, we have been absolutely focused on acting to ensure that households get the support that they need. I am delighted that the powers that the Scottish Government have through the Scotland Act 1998 are being used to support the most vulnerable; that is exactly what they are there for. The partnership with DWP is welcome and has been very much strengthened. I am keen that we should continue to keep it under review and work strongly together. For those people who are struggling, I remind people that there are 1.1 million vacancies out there and we at DWP have all sorts of interventions that can help people to get into those roles. I will come on to that shortly.
I am very mindful of our particular role at DWP in mental health and wellbeing for women. Menopause has been a particular focus for me, particularly when it comes to anxiety and the impact on work. Menopause does not only affect women in their 40s or 50s; it can come at any age and at any career stage. Again, we have recently appointed the menopause employment champion, who will work collaboratively with businesses to ensure that the necessary information and resources are out there to support women. That champion is Helen Tomlinson, who is already cracking on with working with employers. NHS England’s national menopause care improvement programme is also focused on improving clinical menopause care in England and on reducing disparities in treatment. Changes from April will provide support with prescription costs as well. I am very alive to the impact of menopause.
We also discussed carers. I have shared before that my family has been a caring family and shared the impact of that. I look back on the mental health and wellbeing of my mum with some shame, to be honest, about the lack of recognition of the support that people need. I listened to my constituents on Carers’ Rights Day just recently. Disability, and the impact it has, can happen at any age or career stage. It could affect a child, or anyone later.
Carer’s allowance provides a measure of financial support and recognition for people who give up the opportunity of full-time employment to provide regular and substantial care for anybody who is severely disabled. Just under 1 million people receive carer’s allowance, which will increase in April, and receiving a means-tested benefit can be a passport to other support, including help with fuel costs and help through other schemes, such as the warm home discount scheme.
That is why I say to any constituent and to those who are watching: please have a look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk. People should make sure that they are claiming everything that they are entitled to. Many carers do not recognise that they are carers and that there is additional support out there for them.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her very detailed response. Sometimes people, for whatever reason—they may just have a busy life—perhaps do not have the opportunity to pursue the suggestions she has just made, which were very positive. In many cases, I suspect that if they did make inquiries they would qualify for money. But is there any way that the Government could be more proactive on the issue, perhaps even by chasing the carers to ask whether they are aware of all their entitlements? Even a small leaflet through the post can make a big difference to a person who wants to understand what they could gain.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Charities such as Carers UK do an incredible job to help people in exactly that way; I know that as a former co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I will pass the point about communications on to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. I remind people that, through DWP, we have the Help to Claim service, and if people head to the Help for Households website, that can help them as well.
Discussing this issue gives me the opportunity to talk again in this Chamber about our amazing caseworkers—those who signpost and support people in need and help them to recognise and understand the support that is out there.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about domestic abuse and coercive and financial control, which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) also mentioned. Tackling violence against women is an absolute priority for this Government. These crimes are harmful; they have a profound effect on victims, survivors, loved ones, families and our wider society. The hon. Member for Wirral South was absolutely right that one’s gender should not have an impact on how safe one feels or how well one can do. Times have to change.
Split payments are available in the universal credit system for all claimants who need them. A split payment is when the household universal credit award, which would normally be paid to the nominated account, is divided between two claimants. Split payments can be made to two separate members of a household, with a larger percentage allocated to the person with primary caring responsibilities, to ensure the health and wellbeing of the majority of the household.
That is a reminder for me to point out that if anyone is in need of any support—if they are under any control or are worried at all—a jobcentre is a safe place for them to disclose that, by using the “Ask for ANI” scheme and talking to their work coach. Departmental training and awareness are now better than ever, and there are now jobcentre staff who are specifically trained to support people experiencing any kind of domestic abuse, as there are in the Child Maintenance Service. That allows jobcentre staff to proactively identify, support and signpost victims of abuse. We are committed to the best possible support for our claimants, including those experiencing domestic abuse.
The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned pension credit. That is vital financial support for pensioners on low incomes, which is why we launched a £1.2 million nationwide campaign in April 2022 to increase awareness and take-up, particularly for women who may be on a low income, whom we have discussed today. The most recent figures show, out of the pool of people who are entitled to pension credit, an estimated take-up of 66% for the financial year 2019-20. With the beginning of the pension credit awareness campaign in April 2022, weekly pension credit claims volumes increased by 73% compared to the previous 12 months, so this is working. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
We are undertaking further communications activities, and we are absolutely determined to have a broad reach. The DWP is writing to more than 11 million pensioners to notify them about the upcoming state pension uprating, and last year that notification was accompanied by a leaflet promoting pension credit. We plan to spend another £1.8 million until the end of this financial year communicating with those who might be entitled.
Jim Shannon
I welcome that. In my office—I am sure it is the same in yours, Mr Sharma, and those of all hon. Members—whenever pensioners come to see me, I always ask whether they are getting all their entitlements. The first thing we check is whether they are getting pension credit. They might not qualify for it, but we always check it. The other thing is that if age is not on their side and they are getting older, they may not be as physically strong as they once were, and attendance allowance is a benefit that is not emphasised enough. Could we put a wee bit of emphasis on that?
Mims Davies
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, which I shall take back to the Department forthwith. I hope that that pleases him.
Patricia Gibson
I am prompted to intervene by the comment from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In my constituency, Money Matters is an organisation that offers a free, confidential, comprehensive service by providing benefit checks to all constituents who are concerned about making ends meet. Does the Minister agree that the DWP is best placed to carry out those comprehensive benefit checks to make sure that people are receiving their full entitlement of support?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Interestingly, though, people do not particularly want to be labelled. Sometimes it is hard to make people understand that they are entitled. Alongside DWP’s responsibility, we all have a responsibility in respect of that, through our constituency surgeries and through the third sector. It is a group responsibility, although I absolutely see her point.
There will be further accessible radio, print and digital advertising to make sure that we reach people who may not be online, as the hon. Member for Strangford noted. On his point about ethnic minority women entering and advancing in the workforce, that is an issue I am absolutely passionate about—if you cannot see it, you cannot be it. A recent roundtable at No. 10 very much focused on that issue.
At the end of 2022, there were more than 2 million ethnic minority women in employment. That has risen from more than 1 million in 2010—a 79.6% increase. We know that some ethnic minority women can face specific and challenging cultural barriers to moving into and thriving in employment. Therefore, our outreach work links up with organisations and employers to help those furthest away from the labour market to move into employment.
I was recently in Birmingham, a brilliant area for reaching out to those groups and working to understand the opportunities, where there is support with work experience to really help to build up confidence and employability. We are rolling out learning from a proof of concept, targeted at ethnic minority women, who may fail to engage and thrive in the labour market for many cultural and traditional reasons. In four local authority areas, jobcentres have appointed a women’s community co-ordinator, offering wraparound support to help women with an ethnic minority background to thrive in employment, and we are looking to extend that further.
The hon. Member for Strangford spoke delicately about sex for rent and other behaviours that some women may feel that they need to engage in to secure themselves. That is a focus of my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines). When I was there very briefly, we took some steps to focus on the challenges and why people might feel pushed into something such as that.
I think I have answered most of the questions, and I will make a little progress with my speech. Northern Ireland has the second lowest unemployment rate in the UK at 2.4%, which is quite remarkable—a whole 1% lower than the UK average. As we know, work is the best way to earn more and move out of poverty, and that is reflected in the two statistics of low poverty and low unemployment. I take the point that for people for whom the barriers are highest, that probably makes no difference, and that is where we need to put our focus.
I was delighted to see that our interventions in the cost of living Bill—the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill—received Royal Assent today; we are, again, focusing on the most vulnerable. I reiterate our absolute commitment to a sustainable, long-term approach to tackling poverty and better using the welfare system. In this coming financial year, we are uprating all benefits and state pensions by 10.1%. To increase the number of households who can benefit from those decisions, the benefit cap level is also increasing by the same amount.
A key area for us at DWP is focusing on low-paid work. We want to give people a range of options to help them to be better off, boost their skills and gain interview assistance, whether it is through our 50-plus interventions or by tackling additional barriers, disabilities or health conditions and extending our support through jobcentres.
Next month, the national living wage will be increased by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour, and that will benefit more than 2 million low-paid workers. That represents an increase of more than £1,600 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker who receives the national living wage.
The hon. Member for Wirral South spoke about childcare and the barriers to parents returning to work. The Budget measures and all those other things are being done at once. One of the challenges she laid down for me and my Department was to focus on the impact. She asked about the evaluations, which I am happy to share with her, and I will write to her further with some of those responses.
Members will be pleased to know that at the Budget, we announced an extension of the existing redundancy protection offered during maternity leave so that it will also apply to pregnant women and to new parents on their return from maternity or parental leave. It will provide security to an estimated half a million more people at any one time.
I am conscious that I have spoken for some time, but there was a lot to cover; I appreciate Members’ forbearance. The Government are fully committed to providing opportunities for women across the whole United Kingdom so that they can be successful in whatever they do. We want them to flourish and not be impeded by unfair and unjust barriers. We will continue to ensure that our support is targeted effectively to provide stability and certainty for everyone in these challenging times.
I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to respond, and to discuss the support available to women to lift them out of poverty and help them and their families lead fulfilling, productive and rewarding lives.
Jim Shannon
I thank each and every person who contributed. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and I are always in debates together. That is the nature of our lives; we probably have the same interests. We are very interested in these subjects. She said that women are impacted by austerity even more than men are. She referred to the figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and she reflected on the necessity of closing the gender pay gap. She spoke about split payments and said that it is time to name and shame, and I agree. If someone is not doing it right, they need to do it right, and they need to be reminded of that. She also referred to what is being done in Scotland. We are often reminded of things that the Scottish Government are doing, and today we were reminded again of some good points that we should be taking on board. She also referred to the gender pension gap, and to compensation. Like her, I feel strongly that there is an anomaly that has to be addressed.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to those who keep homes together—mums and lone parents who look after the children. She referred to the pressure they are under and said that she sees that in her office, as we all do.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) brought a wealth of information to the debate. I really appreciated her contribution. She referred to Margaret—forgive me; I just could not make out the lady’s name.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady. I asked the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran about it, but we could not make out the name. Margaret Bondfield set a trend for powerful women who made a difference. She became the first female president of the TUC and a Cabinet Minister. Those are the people who led the way —the pioneers—and it is important that we remember them.
The shadow Minister also referred to the gender pay gap and to those in retirement. She talked about the structural underpinnings for women. Those are all important objectives; that is what we should be trying to do. She also referred to the working poor. She spoke about looking after the home, earning an income and looking after families—the challenge for women is worse, and it is harder than that of the menfolk. She also said that women’s rights at work must be better, and she referred to flexible working. She made all those points well, and I really appreciated her contribution.
I thank the Minister, who came with a positive attitude. She said that everyone here was a passionate advocate for women’s rights—that includes her, by the way. Looking after children is an important role in itself, never mind keeping the home going, and she spoke about childcare caps for women in poverty. We welcome the childcare measures, as did the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. The Minister referred to the work that has been done to ensure that full-time working parents benefit. She talked about the need to help the low-paid and she mentioned mental health pressures, which we all brought up; she recognises where such support needs to be. She referred to the extra moneys that were set aside in the Budget for that, for the carer’s allowance—I have a massive interest in that—and for cost of living help. She referred to wellbeing and the menopause, and how women have to deal with many other things in their lives.
The Minister also referred to domestic abuse, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, and to pension credit. We need to help people a wee bit more with attendance allowance and other benefits. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment. Sometimes what people need is just a wee bit of a nudge in the right direction. That is why when people come into the office, I always ask them what they are getting, so that we have an idea of what they should be getting but might not be. I think we can all be encouraged by the Minister’s response.
I say to everyone who took part, and particularly to the Minister, that I hope that with this debate we can move things forward for women in poverty across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that we have a big task, but it is always easier when we have a Government and a Minister who are also committed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of support for women in poverty.
Written Statements
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office: Horizon Compensation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Post Office Horizon scandal, which began over 20 years ago, has had a devastating impact on the lives of many postmasters. Starting in the late 1990s, the Post Office began installing Horizon accounting software, but faults in the software led to shortfalls in branches’ accounts. The Post Office demanded sub-postmasters cover the shortfalls, and in many cases wrongfully prosecuted them for false accounting or theft.
The High Court group litigation order case against the Post Office brought by 555 postmasters exposed the scandal. The House will know that Sir Wyn Williams is now chairing a statutory inquiry to establish what went wrong and identify those who were responsible for what has happened.
The settlement of the High Court case ensured that postmasters who had not been party to it would receive proper compensation through what is now the historical shortfall scheme. However, group litigation order postmasters had much of their compensation taken up by the associated costs of funding their case and they were ineligible to access further compensation through the historical shortfall scheme. This meant that they received less than those in similar circumstances who were not party to the case. Government have agreed to run an additional compensation scheme to put this right and to allow group litigation order postmasters to access similar compensation as that available to their historical shortfall scheme peers in similar circumstances.
On 7 December the then Secretary of State announced the outline of the scheme. Since then, a great deal of work has been done to finalise the details, drawing on helpful input from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and claimants’ legal representatives as well as utilising lessons learned from the historical shortfall scheme and compensation for those with Overturned Historical Convictions. On 10 February the Government published a tariff (agreed with claimants’ lawyers) for reasonable legal fees and a registration form.
In December we announced an independent advisory board on the scheme chaired by Professor Christopher Hodges and includes Lord Arbuthnot, Professor Richard Moorhead and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), all of whom have long been distinguished campaigners for postmasters. I am pleased to report that the advisory board has met three times, and reports of its meetings are on gov.uk.
We also said that we would follow an alternative dispute resolution model delivered by the Government. I can report today that we have appointed Dentons as our independent claims facilitators. Its role will be to promote fair and prompt resolutions of each case. We have also appointed Addleshaw Goddard to act as my Department’s external legal advisers on the scheme. They will take a collaborative approach, ensuring that there is no place for aggressive litigation in resolving claims.
I am delighted to tell the House that the scheme is open to receive claims from today. Details of how to submit claims can be found on gov.uk. Our legal powers to pay compensation run out in August 2024, but we certainly hope to make payments much faster than that. As the then Secretary of State told the House in December, we hope that most cases can be resolved before the end of 2023. I am placing documentation on the scheme in the Library of the House.
I am further pleased to report that the statutory instrument exempting group litigation order compensation from income tax, national insurance contributions and capital gains tax was laid before the Commons on 23 February and came into force on 16 March.
Historical Shortfall Scheme
I am also pleased to provide an update on Post Office’s progress in delivering compensation to those in the historical shortfall scheme. I am pleased to see the progress that Post Office has made in delivering compensation to post- masters. As of 21 March, 98% of eligible claimants have been issued offers of compensation, totalling £90.2m. Post Office is working to issue offers to remaining claimants as soon as possible.
Post Office has also received 231 late claims to date, with 15 offers issued so far.
I also recognise the concerns that have been raised in recent weeks around the tax position of claimants in the historical shortfall scheme. It has always been the intention of the scheme to return postmasters to the position they should have been in had they not been affected by the Horizon issues. The Government want to see fair compensation for all victims and my Department is working urgently to address this issue with the Post Office, HM Treasury and HMRC.
Overturned Historical Convictions
I am also pleased to provide an update on Post Office’s progress in delivering compensation to those with overturned historical convictions.
As of 20 March, Post Office had paid out over £17.6m in compensation. 79 of the 84 postmasters with overturned historical convictions had received interim payments, totalling over £10.2m. Post Office has reached full and final settlement with 4 postmasters. In order to deliver compensation as quickly as possible, Post Office is handling non-pecuniary and pecuniary claims separately.
A further 63 non-pecuniary claims had been received, of which all but three had received offers. 49 of these had been paid and settled, with one more claim paid, subject to settlement paperwork, which will bring the total to 50, once received.
In addition to the four full and final settlements, Post Office had made pecuniary settlement offers to four of the nine postmasters who had submitted a pecuniary claim.
[HCWS664]
Family Law: Dispute Resolution and Mediation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Today the Government are launching a consultation that will inform proposals to support more families, in appropriate cases, to agree their children and financial arrangements without court involvement.
Family courts are under unprecedented pressure. In recent years, more families than ever before are applying to the court to resolve their disputes about children and financial matters, and once at court their cases are taking longer to be resolved. We believe that many of these disputes can be successfully resolved outside of court, and that in supporting this we can spare families, and especially children, the anguish of protracted litigation. Resolving more disputes outside of court will also help enable the courts to focus available resource on the cases that need to be there, including where domestic abuse is evidenced or there are urgent issues, and ensure these are resolved swiftly. This will help us to deliver on the levelling-up agenda by ensuring we improve the experience of parents across the country, including the most deprived areas.
Key proposals in the consultation include:
Supporting parents to resolve their children and financial arrangements without court involvement:
We propose to strengthen access to resources and guidance for parents/carers and separating couples, and seek views on requiring parents/carers, in appropriate cases, to attend a co-parenting programme alongside mediation to help them better understand their family’s options.
Resolving private family law arrangements through mediation:
We propose to introduce a requirement, in appropriate cases, to make a reasonable attempt to mediate before applying to court. We are seeking views on how this could operate, and the circumstances that should make an individual or family exempt from the requirement. We propose that Government would fund the cost of this mediation for child arrangement cases and seek views on the funding of mediation for finance cases.
Accountability and costs in court proceedings:
We are also consulting on how costs orders could be used by the family courts to enforce requirements to mediate and discourage unnecessary prolonging of court proceedings.
The consultation also seeks views on the impact these proposals may have on the mediation sector, and the role of other forms of dispute resolution in family cases.
We want to hear from a range of people with experience of the private family law system, including families with experience of family courts, the organisations that work to support them, and the professionals who work within the system sector. We will be holding a number of stake- holder engagement events to ensure we receive detailed responses from a wide range of people and organisations.
The consultation is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/
The consultation closes on 15 June 2023.
[HCWS666]
Freeports: Wales
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Today the UK and Welsh Governments have jointly announced that there will be two new Freeports in Wales: Celtic Freeport and Anglesey Freeport.
This is an important moment for people across Wales. Freeport status will support the creation of high skilled jobs, drive growth and level up parts of our great country that have been previously overlooked. Each freeport, subject to business case, will be backed by up to £26 million in UK Government funding, and a range of tax incentives, including locally retained business rates to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration. This is alongside a generous package of trade and innovation support for businesses locating there.
These two new freeports will unlock significant funding for Wales, helping to boost the economy and ensuring the benefits are felt from Anglesey to Port Talbot and Milford Haven. They will help to create tens of thousands of new jobs, boost business, and unleash potentially billions of pounds of investment in the local areas and beyond. The strong bids from the Celtic and Anglesey sites compellingly demonstrated how they will use freeport status to regenerate their local communities, establish hubs for global trade, and foster an innovative environment.
Freeports are at the vanguard of levelling up: driving growth and bringing opportunity and prosperity to the communities that surround them. The new freeports in Wales will build on the UK Government’s successful freeport programme in England, where all eight freeports are open for business, and in Scotland where two new green freeports have recently been announced.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that the whole of the UK can reap the benefits of our freeports programme. As well as freeports being set up in England, Scotland and Wales, we also continue discussions with stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how best to deliver the benefits associated with freeports there.
[HCWS665]
Incomes and Living Conditions: 2021-22 Statistics
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Department for Work and Pensions has today published its annual statistics on incomes and living standards covering 2021-22. This includes households below average income (HBAI), which contains estimates of household incomes and a range of low-income indicators for 2021-22, derived from the family resources survey. Further publications in today’s release are: income dynamics, pensioners’ income series, children in low income families, improving lives indicators, separated families statistics and the family resources survey. These publications cover the four statutory measures of child poverty required to be published by DWP under the Child Poverty Act 2010.
This Government have overseen significant falls in absolute poverty since 2009-10, largely driven by increases in labour market participation, with 3.8 million more people currently in employment and sustained improvements to the national living wage, which will increase to £10.42 per hour from April. There were 1.7 million fewer people in absolute low income, and the rate has fallen by 4% after housing costs in 2021-22 compared to 2009-10. This includes 400,000 fewer children, 1 million fewer working-age adults and 200,000 fewer pensioners.
Between 2020-21 and 2021-22, median income grew by £8 per week in real terms but there was a slight increase in the number of people in absolute low income. This was driven by increases in the numbers of pensioners in absolute low income, due to lower occupational pension income and higher inflation than in the previous year, impacting the value of the state pension. For working-age people, absolute poverty rates were unchanged, with strong earnings growth offsetting the impact of the withdrawal of the unprecedented levels of Government support to protect incomes and jobs during the pandemic.
Building on the food insecurity data which this Government first published in 2019-20, we are publishing official estimates of food bank use for the first time. In 2021-22, 3%—0.8 million households—had used a food bank on at least one occasion in the past year. HBAI recorded that less than 0.1 million pensioner households used a food bank in the past year. In 2021-22 7% of individuals, or 4.7 million people, were living in households classed as food insecure, down from 8% in 2019-20.
These statistics are for 2021-22 so do not reflect the impact of the cost of living challenges caused by Putin’s illegal war and global supply chain pressures. We recognised the pressures households faced as a result and acted, providing substantial cost of living support in 2022-23 including cost of living payments worth up to £650 for those on means-tested benefits, £150 for eligible disabled people and £300 for pensioner households. At autumn statement 2022, the Government announced benefits and pensions uprating of 10.1%, the largest ever cash increase to the national living wage and generous cost of living support for 2023-24. This included additional cost of living payments for more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits, 6 million people on disability benefits, and 8 million pensioner households across the UK. It also included an additional £1 billion, including Barnett impact, to enable the extension of the household support fund in England, to help households with the cost of essentials. As announced at the spring budget, to further support households with the cost of living, the Government are maintaining the energy price guarantee at £2,500 for a further three months, from April 2023.
This Government are committed to obtaining the best evidence to ensure policies are targeted at helping the most vulnerable in our society. Last year a suite of further material deprivation measures were published. To further improve the evidence base, the Government are resuming work to develop experimental statistics based on the social metrics commission's innovative work on poverty measurement.
[HCWS667]
Grand Committee
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-X Tenth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (21 Mar 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 241FC
Baroness Worthington
“Climate and nature offsets
In Schedule 2 to FSMA 2000 (regulated activities) after paragraph 9 insert—“Climate and nature offsets(9ZA) Selling, or offering or agreeing to sell, climate and nature offsets.””
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for lending her name to this amendment. I am not at all wedded to the exact wording of it. I would welcome discussions with the Government about approaches to this issue; however, I stress that this is a really important issue that needs regulatory approaches.
Currently, my amendment would add these activities to Schedule 2 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:
“Selling, or offering or agreeing to sell, climate and nature offsets”.
This would make them regulated activities and enable the setting of minimum standards by the FCA, the regulator. By “off-sets”, I have in mind the voluntary carbon market and the nascent market in biodiversity, where an entity voluntarily seeks to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions or loss of biodiversity arising from its activities by reporting an equivalent amount of emissions reduction or removal, or biodiversity gains, outside of its boundary that it has purchased through a credit or a financial mechanism.
There are more formal markets, particularly in carbon, where participants are required to participate. These are compliance markets. It is not my intention to focus on those, although there have been incidents in such markets, where there may well also be a need for more oversight. Despite the mandatory nature of the market, there have been examples of fraud and mis-selling. There is a lack of transparency even in these markets.
I return to the voluntary market. By making the trade in climate and nature off-sets a regulated activity, the FCA could make rules setting out principles, standards or regulated guidance that off-sets must then meet. I am not seeking to tie the FCA’s hands by setting out what rules it should make; it is a complex issue. It will need to invest in relevant expertise and be led by evidence, but it does need to invest in that expertise.
This amendment is supported by financial market participants. I put on record my thanks to Scottish Widows; Railpen—the Railways Pension Scheme; the Brunel Pension Partnership, which manages the assets for local government pension schemes in the south-west; and employees of the Environment Agency and the Church of England Pensions Board. These organisations collectively are responsible for more than £250 billion in assets; they have written to me in support of this amendment, and I am sure would welcome a meeting with government to discuss it further. They tell me that it is widely known that this market is not functioning well at the moment, and that the voluntary certifications and quality codes are not delivering the transparency, reliability and quality of off-sets for financing to flow freely into projects that could make a real difference in the fight against climate change and nature loss.
Given that, to achieve net zero, the majority of firms will have to rely on some form of tradable off-set or tradable credits for their residual emissions, which could be impossible to eliminate through actual investments, regulation of this market would serve the purpose of building trust for firms to allocate finance in this area—and I agree with them. Currently the market is relatively small, but it is growing and has increased fivefold since 2018, and many have called for it to scale further, including the former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney. The Climate Change Committee estimates it to be a $2 billion a year market, accounting for 300 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year—around 1% of global emissions and not far from the total contribution of the UK to the climate change problem, so it is not insignificant.
However, this market in climate mitigation or activities will not scale or endure without better regulated standards that can underpin confidence in the market. As the need to demonstrate a response to the growing climate risks increases, more and more companies and individuals will be tempted to buy their way to a cleaner carbon footprint or a cleaner reputation. Already, one-third of FTSE 350 companies include off-sets in their emissions reduction plans. Off-sets account for between 35% and 80% of their pledged emissions reductions—so it is a significant piece of financial architecture that people are relying on to get to net zero.
Companies will want to be seen to do the right thing, but this will be challenging. It is extremely difficult to assess whether emissions reductions being purchased are both real and durable. This offers an opportunity to unscrupulous providers to market poor-quality products to unsuspecting companies and investors. As I said, even the regulated carbon markets have seen examples of fraud and poor-quality off-sets entering markets. In the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the Europe-wide carbon market, the market had to be closed to overseas investments in credits, partly in response to an oversupplied market but also partly due to persistent questions about the quality of the credits entering the market.
The potential for mis-selling in this market is high. Some noble Lords may remember that, in 2011, a listed company on the Canadian stock exchange, the Sino-Forest Corporation, went bankrupt after an investigation revealed that the company’s claims were vastly out of line with reality on the ground. The case related to a standard forestry offering; it is far easier to verify whether the land has been purchased and the trees are there than it is to verify whether those forests are actually absorbing or storing carbon—an invisible commodity that we are essentially turning into a tradeable commodity. Similarly, how much biodiversity the forest may hold is a far harder thing to verify.
The difficulties of verifying this market make it very attractive for unscrupulous actors and, as excitement and financial flows increase in this market, that attractiveness to potentially rogue actors will only grow. One UK-based carbon market ratings agency has already reported that it believes that only 30% of offsets on the market are high quality, and 25%—one-quarter—could effectively be classed as having junk status. The Swiss-registered offset provider, South Pole, one of the largest in the market, had the integrity of its offering called into question by an article in Tages-Anzeiger in February this year. This sent shock waves through the industry, and a lot of attention has now been placed on the question of integrity.
Most of the focus of the carbon market quality checks is on credits generated in the biosphere—so-called nature-based solutions. Trees are the most common product to which you will find financial instruments attached, but carbon is stored in other ways, too, and it is even more difficult to verify some of those other sources of carbon store because they are far harder to count and track. Below-ground carbon in soils is one example: it is notoriously difficult to get a handle on exactly what is happening in the carbon cycle in soils. It is even harder with below-water carbon—blue carbon—stored in sea grasses and other marine ecosystems, where you cannot even see the commodity being sold. These difficulties are pronounced.
The Minister may say, “Don’t worry; normal regulations against fraud and corruption will be sufficient to protect against outright fraud and corruption”, but these markets are uniquely complex. Often the problem is not that actors are wilfully seeking to do wrong but rather that there is an unhelpful lack of independent standards in the market to help determine what constitutes an additional or biodiversity benefit. In that uncertainty, it is not just investors who will potentially find that their investments are not delivering what they expected; the whole planet is being short-changed. This is because the sale of an offset permits the continued emission of greenhouse gases, minus the guilt; and, if the offset purchase is not genuine, atmospheric concentrations, already at dangerously high levels, will continue to rise. As we saw in the latest assessment report from the IPCC, this is starting to imperil us all.
Independent observers of the integrity of this market have highlighted concerns. A report published on this topic by IOSCO, the International Organization of Securities Commissions—the global standard-setter for investment securities—explains in detail the issues with the quality of carbon credits and the lack of a uniform definition of what constitutes high quality. I will not run through them; there are at least 10 reasons why this market is complicated.
At the top line, there are questions about additionality—whether this action is genuinely additional to what would have happened anyway—and about permanence and the risk of reversal. There are risks of leakage: you may be protecting something in one area, but that activity is just displaced to somewhere else and the emissions still occur. There are concerns about double counting, registry and transparency. There are potential conflicts in the market, and there is a lack of legal clarity, no standardisation, poor data and, overwhelmingly, a very large risk of greenwashing and, from that, legal risks and potential litigation cases. We are not in a good situation today. The market is small now, but it will grow, and it is really timely to be considering whether the Government should take powers now to regulate it.
This is a volatile market, as you can imagine, such is the uncertainty, with the mis-selling of fraud and the mistaken assumptions. There have been plenty of studies into why that might be the case. I will touch on an example of why regulations are needed: pension funds. In the UK, they are now investing in forest carbon offsets for the long term. This relates to both defined benefit offerings, where there are some protections for savers, but defined contribution schemes are increasingly entering this market too.
The long-term future of the biosphere in a changed climate is deeply uncertain and pension fund advisers and managers need better guidance. They simply should not have to determine whether something they are being sold is correct with no guidance from government and no regulation. There could be risks from litigation, as I mentioned: should vendors of these products be hit with legal claims or go bankrupt, savers will be hit by that outcome.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for tabling this amendment. I totally agree with its necessity, which is why I have added my name to it. If we are to meet our statutory net-zero targets, carbon offsetting will become ever more important as we decarbonise and reach those emissions that are so hard to abate and the residual emissions that the noble Baroness spoke about.
Let me say at the outset, however, that carbon offsetting is not a solution to climate change. There is only one way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that is to stop adding to the blanket of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere that is already at a higher concentration than at any time since records began. Just for the record, the May peak of carbon dioxide in 2022 was a record 421 parts per million. The highest recorded over the previous 800,000 years for which we have records was just under 300 parts per million. This increase has happened in a blink of a geological eye, over just the last 150 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This Committee is not the time or place to go into the impact on our planet, save to say that catastrophic events are happening at a faster pace than even the most pessimistic predictions by scientists.
As we know, the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases is the burning of fossil fuels. The second biggest is deforestation. Putting an end to both these practices is well under way but is not going fast enough. I hope that more will be done through this Bill before it becomes an Act, because it deals with the money that fuels the release of those greenhouse gas emissions.
Until decarbonisation measures bite—and resistance to them is strong; we have seen that in some of the contributions to this Committee—carbon off-sets are one tool we have to mitigate the harm of climate chaos and the destruction of nature. The market demand for off-sets is exponential and the scope for fraud in the voluntary carbon market is massive. Greenwashing is rife. I will give one example: the recent chastisement of HSBC by the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading people with some of its claims to be carbon neutral. However, we need a functioning market to off-set hard-to-eliminate sources of greenhouse gases, which will leave residual emissions. It is the role of government to enable regulators to act, which is why this amendment is necessary and why I added my name to it.
Industry is also asking government to play its part. I will quote a substantial part of the recent report by Scottish Widows, Nature and Biodiversity: the Pensions Imperative, because it says it far better than I can:
“With companies potentially needing to put billions of pounds into offsets to meet their net zero commitments, the biggest barrier to date is the opacity of the voluntary carbon market. This breeds mistrust, particularly as a number of bad actors have been exposed in the past. What could really shift the dial here is the establishment of a UK regulator for carbon offsets. This could set quality standards that corporations looking to do the right thing could trust, enabling them to allocate money with confidence in these offsets having additionality and really delivering on those climate and nature goals”.
Finally, when I was a member of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, we produced a report entitled Nature-Based Solutions. The committee heard evidence from a cross-section of practitioners in the carbon credits sector, from both the science and financial communities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we heard from the science community how difficult it is to quantify and monetise nature-based solutions. From the financial community, we heard that it needs a regulatory framework so that everyone can work on a level playing field and so that the market is less like the wild west—which it currently is.
I will conclude by quoting a conclusion of that report:
“We recommend that the Government provides clear regulatory standards for emerging carbon markets to ensure that any off-sets that are claimed are genuine”.
However,
“these markets will only deliver the desired results if they are properly regulated and verified to prevent inaccurate claims of carbon off-setting. Carbon and nature credits must be for benefits that are additional, measurable, and permanent”.
For carbon credits to have the impact we all want, they must have good governance backed by government.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Sheehan, and to offer Green support for this amendment, which is obviously urgently needed. I essentially agree with everything that the two noble Baronesses said, particularly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that off-sets are essentially a con that should not be used to trade off against continuing fossil fuel emissions. None the less, we are where we are and they are certainly going to happen.
The complexity is really well illustrated by a recent report by HSBC, which found that $246 billion-worth of hydroelectricity depends on water provided by threatened tropical cloud forests. We think about where the funding, support and credits should go, but to maintain that electricity supply, surely the people producing the electricity should fund that. This is also a carbon store. It is a real demonstration of the way that, as the Treasury’s own Dasgupta report illustrated, the economy is a complete subset of and entirely dependent on the environment, which we are fast trashing.
The problems with the current “wild west” system have been clearly demonstrated already. In a paper this week in the journal, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project presented a study of nearly 300 carbon off-set projects, representing nearly 11% of global carbon off-set projects to date. It found that the projects were systematically overcrediting their results and delivering extremely dubious carbon off-sets. Apparently respected registries did not follow standards to make sure that projects were having a real and tangible impact on carbon levels. A particular area of difficulty was whether the projects would have happened anyway, whether or not the extra carbon credit was claimed.
I will make one final point. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, sought ways in which the Government might see this as an advantage. In this wild west, there is a need for extensive due diligence for any financial body to be able to claim that it has genuine, honest carbon credits that will deliver over the long term—because the climate emergency is of course a long-term project and not just for one year or five years. There is a significant cost for any company going into this and wishing to protect its reputation. If it is a regulated sector, that will make it a great deal easier for people to do due diligence and to rely on it, and not to have to do the work themselves at considerable cost, facing considerable complexity and carrying considerable risk.
The need for this amendment is obvious. The problems with off-setting both carbon and biodiversity are very clear. We should not be where we are, but we are where we are, and the amendment offers one way forward that would be good for the financial sector as well as for the planet.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
We do not have a fixed view on this proposal and therefore will listen to the response of the Government. At an individual level, when invited to pay my off-sets to British Airways, I am deeply suspicious of them making any useful contribution. My general view on this Bill is that good regulation is important, because the problem with the financial services industry is that any areas of weakness can escalate into a significant wider impact. I take the point that this area of activity will almost certainly expand and there is a good prima facie case that it should be regulated.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the potential for off-setting to enable businesses to address emissions that cannot be reduced through decarbonisation strategies. As the Climate Change Committee has set out, they can play an important role in the transition to net zero.
Done well, and centred around high integrity, climate and nature off-sets through voluntary carbon credits can increase climate ambition, help mobilise finance to developing countries and provide a credible tool for the 1.5 degree transition. Done badly, and without integrity at their core, the potential for “greenwashing” clearly exists. Therefore, it is important that the voluntary carbon credits used by companies reflect genuinely additional removal of or reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Government recognise that it is important to ensure the integrity of these markets if they are to play a role in mobilising investment. Concerns around the integrity of carbon and nature markets, from the supply of voluntary credits, their trading and green claims made by buyers through offsetting, must be addressed.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response and I am encouraged and reassured to know that those powers already exist. I will go away and consider that.
I am going to come back on a couple of points. It is true that some initiatives have been launched—I was involved in one—but they have no statutory basis at all. It is a group of individuals—business leaders and some academics—fighting it out with no governance or democratic representation. It will come out with standards, but the quality control over that process is not being led by sovereign nations. It was launched at COP 26, but there was absolutely no involvement of negotiators, member states or anything with public sector status. Although we look forward to their outcomes, something in that process may lead to less than favourable outcomes.
I ask the Minister: if we are to proceed internationally, which part of the architecture of the UN or any multilateral fora does she see acting as the holder of this important set of regulations? It cannot be left to industry to mark its own homework, nor to the voluntary sector, with its general lack of resources or certainty of funding. It needs to be led truly internationally, through member states and a multilateral process.
Perhaps the Minister would agree to write to me, because I am interested to understand how this can be done internationally. Individual member states have to lead; one or two progressive countries have to start the process, as we have seen with the green taxonomy: Europe started and now the UK has done ours. You do not always have to wait for a UN or international process, but can move forward and take leadership, especially if you are trying to make the City of London the centre of green finance.
Although I am encouraged, there are still some large questions to be answered about how we ensure quality, get the right standards, and involve democratic processes and member states—but I am pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“(3A) For each statutory instrument laid before Parliament in draft under this Act, if each House of Parliament passes a resolution that the regulations have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations have effect as amended.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would allow affirmative SIs generated by this Act to be amended by agreement of both Houses.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 241G, I will also speak to Amendments 243A and 243B. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has added her name to the last two; I am grateful for her support. I will speak first to Amendments 243A and 243B, then to Amendment 241G.
At Second Reading, I estimated—as did the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—that this Bill would generate at least 250 SIs. Many, if not all, of them would bring or have the potential to bring significant policy changes to the regulatory structures of our financial services industries. They would be able to do this without any significant scrutiny by Parliament. The parent Bill—this Bill—rarely sets out explicit policy changes; rather, it gives the Treasury powers to make policy changes when it has decided what those policies might be. Of course, this bypasses parliamentary scrutiny; it also, yet again, ignores the proper purpose and province of delegated legislation.
Amendments 243A and 243B propose a partial remedy. They would allow either House to insist on an enhanced form of scrutiny for SIs that it deems likely to benefit from more detailed examination and debate, as well as from recommendations to Ministers for revision. The usual SI procedures do not allow this. I think we would all accept—perhaps with the dutiful exception of the Minister—that neither the negative nor the affirmative procedure allows for proper and effective scrutiny. This is obviously true for the negative procedure but is also obviously true for the affirmative procedure. We cannot amend them and we do not vote them down.
The super-affirmative SI procedure, as set out in Amendment 243B, would allow a measure of real, detailed scrutiny; a means of hearing evidence; and a means of making recommendations to Ministers for revision. I should emphasise that the super-affirmative procedure does not produce a power to amend SIs; that remains exclusively with the Government. Paragraph 31.14 in part 4 of Erskine May characterises the procedure as follows:
“The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form … the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them.”
During the recent passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, helpfully summarised the super-affirmative procedure, saying that
“that procedure would require an initial draft of the regulations to be laid before Parliament alongside an explanatory statement and that a committee must be convened to report on those draft regulations within 30 days of publication. Only after a minimum of 30 days following the publication of the initial draft regulations may the Secretary of State lay regulations, accompanied by a further published statement on any changes to the regulations. They must then be debated as normal in both Houses and approved by resolution.”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 376.]
That is quite a good précis but it omits reference to the requirement to take account of any representations or recommendations made by a committee and of any resolution of either House. It also omits the requirement to say what these representations, resolutions or recommendations were and explain any changes made in any revised draft of the regulations.
It was during the passage of that Bill—the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill—that this House last voted to insert a super-affirmative procedure. Prior to that, according to the Library, the last recorded insertion was by the Government themselves in October 2017 in what became the Financial Guidance and Claims Act.
When not doing it themselves, the Government traditionally put forward any or all of three routine objections to the use of the super-affirmative procedure. The first is that it is unnecessary because the affirmative procedure provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. That is obviously not the case. The second is that the super-affirmative procedure is cumbersome. I take this to mean only that it is more elaborate than the affirmative procedure but that is precisely the point of it: it is necessarily more elaborate because it provides for actual scrutiny where the affirmative procedure does not. The third is that it all takes too long. This has force only if there is some imminent and necessary deadline but there is none in this case.
In a debate on the then UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, speaking about the super-affirmative procedure, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said:
“This procedure has rarely been considered the appropriate one to prescribe in primary legislation; where it has, the relevant instances have tended to be of a particularly substantive and wide-ranging sort.”—[Official Report, 4/7/22; col. 905.]
I am not sure that I entirely understand the Minister’s first point about prescribing in primary legislation, because that is the only place it can be prescribed, but I understand her second point. However, “particularly substantive and wide-ranging” exactly characterises the changes that SIs could produce in our financial services regime. That is why we propose the super-affirmative procedure.
Amendment 243B sets out the procedure for a super-affirmative SI. Amendment 243A simply says that either House may by resolution require any provision that may be made by the affirmative procedure to be made instead by the super-affirmative procedure. It is left to Parliament to decide which SIs merit the additional scrutiny.
On my Amendment 241G, 18 months ago, the SLSC and the DPRRC published simultaneous and powerful reports setting out in detail concerns that the balance of power has moved significantly from Parliament to the Executive. Part of the reason for this shift has been the abuse of delegated legislation. Cabinet Office guidance explicitly states that delegated legislation is not to be used for policy-making but is to be reserved for detailed proposals about how policy agreed in Parliament can in fact be made to work. This is not what happens. Skeleton Bills, their dependent SIs and Henry VIII provisions all essentially bypass parliamentary scrutiny.
The best current example of this kind of abuse of secondary legislation is probably the REUL Bill, which has been described as “hyper-skeletal”. It allows Ministers, via SIs and other mechanisms, to make, change or revoke policy without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill is a direct assault on Parliament’s interests and its constitutional role.
How could Parliament regain at least some element of effective scrutiny? Absolute rejection of SIs would probably not be desirable or workable but the ability to amend them in critical circumstances, where at issue was the whole notion of parliamentary sovereignty and effective scrutiny, may well be desirable. The SLSC report of February this year, Losing Control?: The Implications for Parliament of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, has this to say in its executive summary:
“We call for the Bill to contain an enhanced scrutiny mechanism that enables Parliament to decide that an instrument makes changes of such policy significance that the usual ‘take it or leave it’ procedures—even if affirmative—relating to statutory instruments should not apply but that a further option should be available, namely a procedure by which the Houses can either amend, or recommend amendments to, the instrument.”
What applies in the case of the REUL Bill applies to this Bill, too.
Amendments 243A and 243B, which I have discussed, would provide the powers to recommend amendments to the SIs generated by this Bill. The question of the ability to amend SIs is a bit more complicated. I asked the Library why it is that SIs are not currently amendable. There are two reasons. The first is that almost all Acts that provide for secondary legislation-making powers do not contain provisions that would enable associated instruments to be amended. In other words, to amend SIs, you would have to have the power to amend written into the parent Act. The House of Commons Information Office publication Statutory Instruments, revised in May 2008, explains this on page 5 in some detail.
The second reason is the absence of relevant parliamentary procedures that could enable amendment to take place. It is clear that it would be a nonsense to replicate all or any of the procedures used in amending primary legislation to amend secondary legislation. However, there is already a simple method for amending SIs that avoids this problem. It is set out in Section 27(3) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which states:
“If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that emergency regulations shall have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations shall have effect as amended”.
Amendment 241G takes its text from the language of that Act. It simply says:
“For each statutory instrument laid before Parliament in draft under this Act, if each House … passes a resolution that the regulations have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations have effect as amended.”
The noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Forsyth, used almost identical language in their Amendment 241F, which we debated on, I think, day 9.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to two of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in this group: Amendments 243A and 243B, which would require the super-affirmative procedure to be used. I have not added my name to Amendment 241G. I am in complete sympathy with the call for Parliament to be able to amend statutory instruments; I pay tribute to the work done by the committees chaired by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. They have highlighted the dangerous shift to skeleton legislation with the resultant reliance on secondary legislation, which has inflicted great harm on Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account.
On the other hand, I recognise that this is a large issue that needs to be taken forward at a high level within both Houses of Parliament, and also of course with the Government. I do not believe that this Bill is the right place to start that process, although I do believe that we need to find a way of progressing the dialogue to find a way forward. I am of course concerned about the parliamentary processes around the many statutory instruments that will come under the powers in this Bill. The super-affirmative procedure is certainly better than the ordinary affirmative procedure, which is why it has my support.
In adding my name to these amendments, I am in fact hitching a ride on them in order to raise some wider issues about the statutory instruments that will come forward once this Bill is made law. This is an issue that should probably have been debated earlier in Committee but I have only recently been made aware of it. I have given my noble friend the Minister only a very small amount of notice of the nature of my concerns; I accept that she may not be able fully to answer at the Dispatch Box today.
The amendments focus on parliamentary oversight of legislation being brought in by statutory instrument. What I think we have not focused on is whether there will be adequate consultation by the Treasury before the statutory instruments are laid in Parliament. Many of the statutory instruments will of course be uncontroversial in the sense that they will merely recreate the EU law in a UK-based framework for the rules that will then be made by regulators.
However, it is entirely possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, that the statutory instruments will contain significant changes from EU law. Clause 4, which allows the restatement of EU law, can be used to incorporate changes to the law within the huge range of possibilities that are allowed for by Clause 2(3). There is no requirement in Clause 4 for the Treasury to consult anyone at all before laying these statutory instruments. This is in stark contrast to the regulators, who have very clear statutory obligations to consult in respect of any rules they will be laying under the terms of the statutory instruments that give them the power.
In addition to Clause 4—this is the actual example that has come to my attention—the Treasury might choose to use the new designated activities power in Clause 8 to set up the replacement regulatory regime under UK law. As with Clause 4, the use of the Clause 8 power does not require the Treasury to consult anyone at all. The example that has been brought to my attention concerns the prospectus regime. I am indebted to the briefing provided to me by a partner in one of the Magic Circle law firms.
As part of the Edinburgh package, the Government published a policy note and a draft statutory instrument on how they intended to replace the EU prospectus rules. Put simply, the designated activities regime will be used to create the new prospectus regime when the existing EU law is repealed. The publication of the draft statutory instrument and the policy note was well received because it allowed those who specialise in this territory to get to grips with the proposed legal framework. Although the policy note was clear that the drafting was not final, it was not clear whether there would be a proper consultation on the new regime.
By way of background, there was a policy intent to deal with the issue of mini-bonds in the light of the London Capital & Finance scandal; that policy is, of course, uncontroversial. The Government were clear in their policy note that they intended to affect retail investors only and did not intend to cover things that were regulated elsewhere. It appears, however, that the chosen vehicle of relevant securities, as defined in the draft statutory instrument, also captures things with no likely impact on the retail market, including—somewhat incredibly—over-the-counter derivates and some loans, securities and financial transactions. I believe that this analysis has been made available to the Treasury via various players in the wholesale financial markets.
Although I understand that communications are constructive, there is a fundamental problem emerging: the so-called illustrative statutory instrument now seems to have morphed into a pre-final document on which no formal consultation will be held. This is important, given the significant widening of the reach of the proposals, well beyond the existing prospectus regime. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could set out how the Government see the next steps for the prospectus statutory instrument and whether formal consultation will occur. I hope that she will be able to respond not only on the particular issue of the prospectus statutory instrument but, more broadly, on the extent to which the Treasury will consult across the range of replacement EU law when it brings that law forward.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as stated in the register.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on finding a way to amend statutory instruments. If it really is possible to change what noble Lords have always believed about SIs, that is welcome news indeed. As the noble Lord says, this procedure would be used only on the rare occasions when your Lordships’ House or another place considered it vital.
I support the noble Lord’s Amendments 243A and 243B, to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has added her name. These would create a super-affirmative category of approval process, introducing a higher bar but only after a resolution is made by either House of Parliament. I also agree with the points made by my noble friend on the prospectus directive and other matters. I support all these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. I cannot usefully add anything in relation to the super-affirmative procedure. It seems that this an admirable proposal—but I want to say a few words about the proposed new subsection in Amendment 241G, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.
To begin with, it seems that, if Parliament authorises the alteration, as Parliament can do anything—as one is taught from one’s earliest days—it must be able to do something as minor, in theory, as this. Furthermore, as she always does, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a very good point that this is a very important step, but why is this not the Bill to start? There are three reasons. First, the financial services industry is of vital concern to the UK. Secondly, these instruments are drafted not by parliamentary counsel but by no doubt very competent lawyers in the Treasury—but there is a difference. Thirdly, it seems that, if the draftsman knows that bits can be corrected, that is a very good supervision of the drafting process.
However, although this is in theory a minor step, it is surprising to say that Parliament can amend statutory instruments and there are obviously consequences for our procedures. It might be appropriate for this Committee or someone—I am not sure how it is done—to say, “The appropriate committees and the clerkly authorities in this House should report on the practicality of doing this”. If it is a procedure, how likely is it to be used? More importantly, we can always find an excuse to say, “Let’s push it down the road”. This is the admirable place to start an important reform for our most important industry.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I do not formally have a view on these amendments. It seems that they would have wide-ranging implications, and I shall consult with colleagues throughout Parliament about how we should come back to this issue. If a piece of legislation is proposed and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, you have to think that it is pretty wide-ranging—in fact, close to impossible. Whether this is the right place to address this issue is a much bigger question than whether it is a good idea. It seems a pretty good idea, but I shall listen to the Minister’s response to the key point about the right place and the right mechanism.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, these amendments would introduce new parliamentary procedures when exercising the powers in the Bill, and the Government do not believe that they are necessary.
The Government have worked hard to ensure that every power in the Bill is appropriately scoped and justified. This was recognised by the DPRRC, which praised the Treasury for
“a thorough and helpful delegated powers memorandum.”
The DPRRC has not recommended any changes to the procedures governing the powers in the Bill. That may, in part, answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the right place. I have worked on enough Bills to know that that is not a frequent conclusion from the Delegated Powers Committee.
This includes the powers in relation to retained EU law. While they are necessarily broad, they are restricted in a number of important ways. First, they are governed by a set of principles that are based on the regulators’ statutory objectives. Secondly, they are limited in what they can be used for. For example, they cannot be used to create new offences. Thirdly, the powers over retained EU law are strictly limited to a subset of legislation. They can be used only to modify or restate retained EU law in financial services legislation, as set out in Schedule 1. Finally, only a small amount of primary legislation is included in the scope of this power, and it is all listed in Schedule 1, Part 4.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Could I ask a clarification of the Minister—I know that I have not participated? Has she just confirmed that in the Government’s view statutory instruments will indeed be making policy change? That would be important for us to understand. I believe that is what she has just said, but I thought I should confirm it.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can only repeat to the noble Baroness my words, which were that consultation and informal engagement, including on draft statutory instruments, will take place where there is a material impact or policy change.
Lord Deben (Con)
If my noble friend is saying what the noble Baroness asked, she is making a very serious change. To object to the changes being recommended on the basis that this is the wrong place seems to me to be quite difficult to uphold.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government will make those changes only within the agreed scope set out in the Bill. That is perhaps why the DPRRC was content with the approach that they were taking.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that the specification in Clause 3 allows for very significant changes to be made? There are many heads under which the Government could fit a change in policy, and that policy change could be significant in the context of the restatement of EU law.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The intention is to allow for the restatement within EU law or to adapt it to a situation or circumstances within the UK. As I have said, in undertaking that work the Government will seek to undertake a combination of formal consultation and informal engagement appropriate to the changes being made. As set out in the Government’s policy statement on the repeal of retained EU law in financial services, the Government aim to balance the need to deliver much-needed reforms with the need to consult industry and stakeholders. They will take the decision on the approach to this on a case-by-case basis.
I wanted to address my noble friend’s specific question on the prospectus regime. The Government intend—
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Would the noble Baroness accept that we have heard that speech before? With every complex Bill where we have sought ways to have more control over statutory instruments, we get the same speech—that it has all been worked through, that the constraints are there and so on. Those of us who have to sit through statutory instruments are growing more and more uncomfortable at the increasing number of occasions when we want more involvement and commitment. We want a situation where some variation in the instruments would be possible and this is a way forward. It may not be the right way, but this is an area of powerful area in the House—the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I believe, referred to two pieces of work that looked at the wider concern around procedures when it comes to statutory instruments and the House’s involvement and ability to respond to them. I can talk only in relation to the Bill before us. Our approach is consistent with the policy approach to the regulation of financial services that the Government have set out and consulted on—the FSMA model. That delegates some policy-making both to the Treasury and then, significantly, to the regulators. In the context of the Bill, we are comfortable that our approach is appropriate to the model of regulation that we are advocating in these circumstances. I recognise the wider debate but, in the context of the Bill, we are confident that our approach is right and appropriate.
Coming to my noble friend’s specific question, I think the concern is around the definition of “securities” in the prospectus regime. The Government intend to include certain non-transferrable securities within the scope of the new public offer regime that is being developed as part of the review of the prospectus regime, which delivers on a recommendation of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s review of the collapse of London Capital & Finance. We intend to capture mini-bonds and other similar non-transferable securities that may cause harm to investors if their offer is not subject to greater regulation.
The Government are keen to ensure that business that does not affect retail investors or is already regulated elsewhere, such as trading in over-the-counter derivatives, is not unintentionally disrupted by the reformed regime. We have been engaging with stakeholders on this point to understand the concerns of industry, and we are considering what changes we can make to the statutory instrument to address them.
The Government do not agree that the use of the super-affirmative procedure in this case is appropriate. Examples where it has been used include legislative reform orders made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and remedial orders made under the Human Rights Act 1998. In both cases, the powers in question can be used very broadly over any primary legislation, due to the nature of the situations that they are intended to address. The delegated powers in this Bill are not comparable with these powers, and I have already explained how the powers over retained EU law are restricted and appropriately scoped. Therefore, in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we are confident that normal parliamentary procedures remain appropriate. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about being able to amend SIs. It is a complicated and far-reaching issue and necessarily involves the House of Commons, but we need to find a mechanism for consulting all the interested parties and formulating a plan for reform. The Minister has not mentioned this, but, as I mentioned in my speech, this is to do with the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Many of our committees’ reports tell us in dramatic terms that the balance of power has recently shifted very significantly towards the Executive. To change that, we need to do something about our ability to scrutinise work that comes before us. That includes being able to amend it and not relying on a toothless system of negative and affirmative SIs, and it relies on being able to amend constructively regulations that might come before us.
As the SLSC said, it is clear that there is a need for such a mechanism to amend SIs and that finding a path to this fairly quickly is important. I agree with the suggestion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that here and now is a pretty good place to start thinking hard about what we do before we get to Report. It is true that the volume of skeleton Bills continues to increase, as does the abuse of delegated powers in a more general sense, and I cannot see it spontaneously decreasing, unless we do something about it.
As to Amendments 243A and 243B—the super-affirmative amendments—the case for them has been accepted by all speakers, except the Minister. We shall definitely want to revisit the issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment at page 89, line 37, would allow any provision that may be made by regulations subject to the negative procedure under this Act, or under any other enactment, to be made in regulations under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 89, line 36.
Viscount Trenchard
“(4A) The Treasury must make regulations under subsection (3) so as to bring section 1 and Schedule 1 into force for the purposes of revoking, within the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the provisions mentioned in that Schedule connected with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the retained EU Law which replaced the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and associated legislation will cease to have effect no later than two months after the passage of the Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I have tabled Amendment 246 to explore the Government’s willingness to move more quickly to take advantage of our new regulatory freedoms. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for her support as she added her name to the amendment. The alternative investment fund managers directive is perhaps the most striking example of an EU regulation that was imposed on this country in the face of strong opposition from the City, the Government and industry at the time. In 2008, Charlie McCreevy, then the EU’s internal market commissioner, assured the industry that the EU would not regulate the alternative investment funds industry, which should be left to member states to regulate or not as they chose. A 2014 report by Dr Scott James for King’s College London, sponsored by the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, tells the story of AIFMD very well.
Contrary to Mr McCreevy’s intention, Manuel Barroso, then president of the EU Commission, intervened in 2009 to push for an alternative investment fund managers directive in order to secure support, principally from France and Germany, for his reappointment as Commission president. The initial draft was therefore prepared without the usual preparatory work and led to harmonised regulations covering disparate organisations from the venture capital, private equity, hedge fund and property fund sectors, lumped together by the Commission as alternative investment funds. The Treasury’s initial response was weak, and the FSA was suffering from a lack of confidence and brain drain in anticipation of being broken up.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Viscount’s amendment, to which I have added my name. My noble friend referred to the political background of the EU at the time of the AIFMD; he spoke about its impact on the industry, with great knowledge and experience, and about the opposition encountered at the time. I shall say a few words about each, beginning with the policy background, noting other differences between the UK sector and the EU sector, and other concerns raised by the House of Lords European Union Committee at the time.
Although businesses may have learned to live with the directive, as one person in the industry told me, it is not exactly something that helps competition or helps the sector to do as well as it might do—nor has it. At the time, the directive had a policy background. It was portrayed as a response to the financial crisis, but in fact it was already on the cards in the European Parliament in 2008. Discussions took place again in April 2009 at the G7. I see it, in terms of policy, as part of Michel Barnier’s commissionership for Internal Markets and Services between 2010 and 2014, when it was driven through as part of a raft of measures designed to promote EU monetary and banking union, including, for instance, the single supervisory mechanism. Monsieur Barnier’s overall approach was to have a centrally controlled and directed policy for the sector, reflecting the traditional approach of the French state to the economy and brought into the EU at its inception.
So, AIFMD should be considered in that context, rather than as suitable for the UK, which was outside the single currency and the economic union. Our financial model is based on markets, freedom and competition under UK law. Indeed, even in the context of the global direction of the sector leading to cross-border regulatory systems, it was seen from the European legal perspective as potentially having “undesirable effects”, with the need highlighted there to find the right balance between rules and freedom, according to the co-authors of a section in the Alternative Fund Managers Investment Directive, a multi-volume assessment, from a legal perspective particularly, published by Kluwer Law in the Netherlands in 2012. The co-authors of the chapter “Challenges from the Supervisor’s Perspective” were concerned about finding the right balance between rules and freedom.
Here in the UK, that balance has traditionally been struck by domestic law and regulation, which has accommodated innovation, competition and regulated risk in a diverse range of businesses. My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke about those: hedge funds, private equity and, indeed, property. It has not been under a rule of law with a “one size fits all” approach, such as that of the EU, which reflected a different approach—a precautionary and code-based system of the law—that is ill equipped for our diverse sector.
My noble friend mentioned the differences between the UK and EU sectors. I would just add that, overall, when we look at the context, the UK sector is different in proportion, in size and in composition. Our financial services sector accounts for 8% of the UK economy—the same proportion as that of Canada and the US. By contrast, in the European states—in Germany and France—as well as in Japan, it accounts for just 4%, so half of ours.
Within the sector, the UK AIFs have a particular profile. According to the figures from ESMA collected for 2019—the last year when they were collected—before leaving the EU, the UK’s AIFs accounted for a net asset value of €1,338 billion, compared with €5,468 billion for the EEA 30, so about 20% of the net asset value. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, he puts the percentage of UK AIFs as a proportion of the EU at 85%. Other figures suggest slightly less, such as 75%, but it is not worth fiddling over the percentage—it is very significant.
That brings me to my third point. My noble friend mentioned many concerns at the time. I would just raise the concerns of the House of Lords EU Committee in February 2010. Commenting on the alleged or apparent aims to increase the stability of the financial sector and facilitate the single market in alternative investment funds, it noted that the discussions about hedge funds and private equity funds regulation had taken place at the EU level in 2008, with reports by MEPs in the EU Parliament, and before the G20 summit. The committee’s balanced report broadly welcomed and acknowledged the potential for risk and welcomed the co-ordination and supervision of fund managers, which would benefit the single market and the UK economy, as well as the co-ordination and supervision of arrangements. It also welcomed the introduction of passports for the sector.
None the less, it had serious concerns about a number of rather major points. It said that this was a directive designed to cover all non-UCIT funds. It said that there was a failure to acknowledge the differences in how AIFs are structured and operate, as well as a failure of proposed disclosure by managers to supervisors to take account of the different types of AIFs and the fact that the requirements should be proportionate and relevant. Above all, the committee was concerned that the directive should be
“in line with, and complement, global arrangements”.
It added:
“Coordination with the US regulatory regime … is essential to avoid a situation in which the EU alternative investment fund industry loses competitiveness at a global level as a result of regulatory arbitrage.”
To conclude, the AIFMD was designed for a different economic and legal system and is not suitable for the UK’s approach. It was seen at the outset to be unsuitable for our sector—one that is different in proportionate size and composition. It is ill suited to the supervision of individual firms and the diverse composition of the sector. It is also ill equipped for a market system under UK law; rather, UK arrangements should be in line with and complement global arrangements. As was explained by the House of Lords EU Committee in 2010, co-ordination with the US regime is essential.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, through this Bill, the Government are seeking gradually to repeal all retained EU law in financial services so that the UK can move to a comprehensive FSMA model of regulation. Under this model, the independent regulators make rules in line with their statutory objectives as set by Parliament and in accordance with the procedures that Parliament has put in place.
It is not the Government’s intention to commence the repeal of retained EU law without ensuring appropriate replacement through UK law when a replacement is needed. The Government set out their approach to the repeal of retained EU law in the document that I referred to earlier, Building a Smarter Financial Services Framework for the UK, which was published in December last year as part of the Edinburgh reforms. It makes it clear that the Government will carefully sequence the repeal to avoid unnecessary disruption and ensure that there are no gaps in regulation.
The Government are prioritising those areas that offer the greatest potential benefits of reform. They have already conducted a number of reviews into parts of retained EU law, including the Solvency II review, the wholesale markets review and my noble friend Lord Hill’s UK listing review. By setting out these priorities, the Government are enabling industry and the regulators to focus their work on the areas that will be reformed first.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard’s Amendment 246 relates to legislation implementing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive in the UK. As has been noted, the UK is the second-largest global asset management hub, with £11.6 trillion of assets under management; this represents a 27% growth in the past five years. The sector also supports 122,000 jobs across the UK and represents around 1% of GDP. These statistics demonstrate the huge value of this industry to the UK and, while the Government would never be complacent, also suggest that the sector is in good health.
The health of the sector is underpinned by proportionate and effective regulation. The Government believe that this must include an appropriate regulatory regime for Alternative Investment Fund managers. These funds are major participants in wholesale markets; they take influential decisions about how capital is allocated, and it is vital that they are held to standards that protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system. Moving simply to repeal the legislation that currently regulates this sector without consideration of replacement could open the UK up to unknown competitiveness and financial stability risks. It could undermine the UK’s reputation as a responsible global financial centre committed to high standards of regulation, which could have significant ramifications for the UK’s relationships with other jurisdictions.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Trenchard has some concerns that the legislation deriving from the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive creates unnecessary burdens on innovative UK firms serving professional investors. The Government have not to date seen evidence that the reform of that directive is a widely shared priority across the sector.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that UK law would be a better arrangement for supervising the sector than inherited EU law?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said at the start of my contribution, it is the Government’s intention to move all retained EU law when it comes to financial services into the FSMA model of regulation. That will apply to this area, too, but it is a question of sequencing and priorities. As I referenced before, we have set out our first wave of priorities and are seeking to look at those areas where the greatest potential benefits of reform lie. I am happy to confirm for my noble friend that it is our intention to move all areas of retained EU law on to a UK law basis.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Just for clarification, will that involve moving away from the precautionary, code-based approach of the EU, which very much influenced the sector post the 1990s and the thinking of our regulators? Will my noble friend confirm that, when the Government review the corpus of retained EU law for this sector, in line with their objects as has been stated, they will pay special attention to the need to rethink the framework of approach rather than simply adopting it? These are different ways of thinking.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I would not want to pre-empt the approach for any specific area of regulation, but the principles on which we are seeking take forward this work are about looking at regulation and ensuring that we use the opportunities outside the EU to take the right approach to that regulation for the UK. My noble friend talked about the different perspectives taken by regulators in the different jurisdictions. That is right. The aim of moving from retained EU law is not simply to transcribe it into UK law but to ensure that it is well adapted to our own circumstances, too. However, I do not think that I can helpfully pre-empt the approach in each area in this debate, but only talk about some of those wider principles.
I was talking about the intention to move all retained EU law into the FSMA model. We have set out our priorities for the first areas in which we are seeking to do this. The Government have not to date seen evidence that the reform of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive is a widely shared priority across the sector. However, the Treasury would of course welcome representations on this point. We are keen to engage further with industry and understand the sector’s priorities as we work to repeal retained EU law associated with alternative investment fund managers over the medium term.
The FCA also recently issued a discussion paper to consider whether wider changes to the asset management regime should be undertaken in future to boost UK competitiveness using the Brexit freedoms introduced by this Bill. This will allow the Government and the regulators to consider what replacement is appropriate for the legislation before commencing its repeal. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, but I confess that I find it rather disappointing. I am grateful for the support that I received from my noble friend Lady Lawlor, who talked more than I had and expanded on what I had said about the emergence of the directive and the reasoning behind it at the EU level at the time. As she so well explained, the AIFMD system was always seen, not only at the outset but since then, to be unsuitable for the UK system.
My noble friend the Minister said that the Government have decided gradually to approach the question of repeal and reform of EU law—certainly, very gradually, I would suggest. As she rightly pointed out, this sector is hugely important and of huge value—she mentioned the figure of 122,000 jobs—to the City and the economy as a whole.
However, the Minister said that the financial services industry is underpinned by healthy and proportionate regulation, which I cannot agree with. I tried hard to explain the reasoning, as I understood it, for the introduction of this directive, and I tried to argue that it is not proportionate at all; it is widely regarded as being disproportionate.
The Minister said that there is no evidence of a widely held belief that the regulation underpinning this sector needs reform or revocation. I strongly question who she has been speaking to. In the last week, I have spoken to a very senior regulator of one of the Crown dependencies, who completely endorsed what I said: it is just not true to argue that this regulation is proportionate. The City has been hugely damaged over the years that the AIFMD regime has been in force. The Minister talked about 122,000 jobs, but how many more would there have been had we not, wrongly and unnecessarily, shackled this innovative sector of our financial services industry with this unnecessary, bureaucratic, cumbersome regulation, introduced entirely for political reasons?
I do not accept what the Minister said: that this would undermine the UK’s reputation. The UK’s present reputation, in the IOSCO and among other financial services markets, is that it has become steadily more bureaucratic. I talk to a number of other regulators, and I have technically been a regulator: I was the first non-Japanese to be appointed to the board of the Japan Securities Dealers Association, which has statutory, regulatory powers.
I very much hoped that the Minister would at least say that this is one sector where the Government recognise that there is disproportionate regulation, rather than argue that it is proportionately regulated, which I am convinced it is not. This would have been an opportunity to improve the City’s competitiveness. The listings review recently conducted by my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford contains many instances of areas where the Government should move quickly. It is a pity that the Government are not using this Bill to move ahead immediately in areas where the case for further consultations is rather weak.
I hope that the Minister will bring back some better news when we next discuss matters such as this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Prisons: Education
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential merits of bringing the delivery of prison education into the public sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, core education in prisons is delivered by four providers: three classified as public sector providers and one as a private sector provider. Wider, non-core prison education is delivered by a range of suppliers, including the third sector. We are engaging with the market to encourage new providers to work with us to deliver high-quality prison education. We do not currently envisage fundamental change to the present system of outsourcing core delivery to specialist education providers.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me, Charlie Taylor and the Education Select Committee that education is fundamental to rehabilitation, so the fact that current providers do not have teaching prisoners to read as their responsibility is staggering? Can the Minister agree to look, at least, at the launch of the prisoner education service as an opportunity to bring all prison education back into the public sector, with standardised curriculum and qualifications, which are so important when prisoners are moved, and standardised education staff contracts to assist with recruitment and retention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government entirely agree that prison education is vital for rehabilitation. In the Government’s view, it does not follow that education, particularly in relation to reading, should be brought back into what the noble Baroness describes as the public sector. Specifically on reading, I can report the Chief of Inspector of Prisons’ remarks of yesterday. Following his report last year, he considers that we are seeing some improvement in reading and that there are encouraging signs of good developing practice in relation to reading education in prisons.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I know that the Minister has recognised the huge importance of prison education. Have His Majesty’s Government assessed the potential benefits of doubling the prison education budget, and, in particular, have they assessed the impact of such a policy shift on reoffending rates?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government currently spend about £125 million a year on the core programme and a further £30 million on special development strategies. In relation to the future, we are developing new contracts from 2025, and I am sure the question of the budget will arise in that context.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, made the point about rehabilitation being so vital. Can my noble and learned friend publish statistics to show the variable reoffending rates between those who do not get qualifications and various other things from education in prison, and those who do? I think this could be very interesting and salutary information.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the statistics in this area, and I will investigate whether we can publish that further information.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the best education in the world, public or private, is useless if there are not the staff there to enable prisoners to get out of their cells to receive it. But if they could, the education service has been carved up by just four main providers, and governors have little or no say in who delivers education in their prisons. The House of Commons Education Committee report has already been mentioned. What are the Government going to do about this issue?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Staffing levels are a continuing problem, but full-time equivalent prison officers have increased by 3,677 between 2016 and December 2022; it now stands at 21,632. In the Government’s view, there is no problem with the quality of our existing providers. The challenges of prison education are evident to all, and the Government are doing their best to tackle them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, when I conducted the review into self-inflicted deaths in prison some years ago, a very substantial issue arose about the cancellation of education sessions simply because there were insufficient staff to transport prisoners to education venues within prisons or, alternatively, because prisons were locked down. What proportion of education sessions do not go ahead for the reasons I have described? If those statistics are not collected, could the Minister explain why this rather important performance indicator is not looked at?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the information he rightly seeks, but I will see if I can. Attendance at classes is an ongoing issue. It is sometimes due to staff shortages. We have introduced new KPIs for prison governors which include attendance, among other things, so I hope to see improvement in this area.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that a vital part of prison education is to help former offenders into gainful employment at the end of their sentence? A number of businesses such as Timpson, under the inimitable Sir John Timpson, have done pioneering work in this field to help prevent recidivism. What more can the Minister do with his department to encourage other firms to follow Timpson’s example?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend in paying tribute to Timpson. There are many other employers with which we are in close touch. The Prison Service has recently introduced prison employment advisory boards in all prisons and an employment innovation fund, and heads of education, skills and work will be established across the prison estate. This is all to improve post-prison employment, which is, I am glad to say, on the increase.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that prisoners have probably the highest density of special educational needs of any group in society? All these groups need different learning patterns compared to the norm to be successful. Is the prison education service equipped to, first, identify and, secondly, provide the extra different types of learning to this client base? If not, it is not going to succeed.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that the Prison Service needs to be equipped, and I respectfully suggest that it is. There are a whole range of things here. There is the core curriculum, which is made up of English, maths and digital skills; vocational courses, such as construction; personal development courses; and digital personal learning plans. I assure the House that the Government are on the case and working hard to improve matters.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Open University offers a range of introductory access modules funded by the Prisoners’ Education Trust, under the banner of “Steps to Success”. They have been specifically designed to help students find out what it is like to study with the OU, get a taste of a subject area, develop study skills and build confidence. As a former teacher, I can tell your Lordships that those things are vital. Does the prison estate have the facilities to offer such excellent distance learning, and who would meet the cost of these courses that are on offer?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, there is a problem within the prison estate in relation to distance learning from external providers, because most prisons do not have external access to the internet. There is an intranet, and it may well be that in due course organisations like the Open University are encouraged to access that facility. But I take the noble Baroness’s question and will investigate further.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows about the Clink Charity, which sets up restaurants in prisons where prisoners are taught by chefs and then serve meals to the general public. If any noble Lords do not know about this, I urge them to go to the one in Brixton. These now have a 49.6% rate of lowering reoffending, because prisoners come out with a job and a skill and somewhere to sleep, which is arranged. This all depends on the good will of the governors. Can the Minister assure the House that he will encourage such projects? I think there are seven now, but there could be many more.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the answer is yes. Prison governors are now specifically required to have regard to developing employment opportunities for those in prison, attendance rates at courses and other matters. I pay tribute to Clink, which is a very well-known and respected organisation. Similar programmes are being offered by other employers, and this is all, I respectfully suggest, good progress.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in my experience with broader education projects such as Debating Matters Beyond Bars, I have found that private sector prisons can be more flexible and less bureaucratic than some state-run prisons. Does the Minister agree that we should focus less on who provides prison education and that education should be given far more priority? Does he also agree that prison education should not be limited to literacy, as it often is, but should be far more imaginative?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government regard prison education with high priority and are working to improve its imaginative and innovative aspects all the time.
Leasehold Reform
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce legislation to end the residential leasehold system.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my registered interests and the fact that I am a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in the Commons his intention to bring the outdated and feudal leasehold system to an end. The Government wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. That is why we have committed to end the sale of new leasehold houses and to reinvigorate commonhold so that it can finally be a genuine alternative to leasehold. We will bring forward further reforms later in this Parliament.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The residential leasehold system is not fit for purpose. The Government need to make significant progress in this Parliament, as they promised. We are running out of time, and the purpose of my Question today is to seek absolute clarity. Will the Bill we are going to get in the next Session of Parliament abolish residential leasehold as a tenure? The answer is either yes or no.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Leasehold—the noble Lord is not getting a yes or no—is increasingly seen as an outdated form of home ownership and, as I said, the Secretary of State has set out his intention to bring this outdated and feudal tenure to an end. I cannot set out the precise details of the future plan at this stage. However, the Government are committed to creating a fair and just housing system that works for everyone, and we are taking forward a comprehensive programme of reform to end unfair practices in the home ownership market by reinvigorating commonhold, which will also give developers and buyers of flats a genuine alternative to leasehold.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, these are difficult times for leaseholders. Many face high service charges as a result of the cladding scandal, while others, as my noble friend just said, are exploited by a minority of freeholders, and there is uncertainty in the market while we await the Government’s reforms. Can my noble friend do more to publicise the existence of a free, independent advisory service for leaseholders, which is supported by her department, and can she give an assurance that it will have the resources and skills to meet demand?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think my noble friend is probably talking about LEASE, which is a government-sponsored arm’s-length body. The Government provide £1.9 million of funding every year so that leaseholders and park home owners can get free information and advice. We recognise that these people face some parallel complexities and lack of control over some of their properties. We are looking at LEASE—a new chair is being recruited at the moment—and we are looking for it to be a little more impactful, customer friendly and cost effective into the future, as well as leading important work to ensure that the voices of leaseholders and park home owners are listened to.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the future legislation will take careful consideration of issues relating to retirement homes and villages?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry—somebody was talking behind me. Can the noble Baroness please repeat that?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My question was about ensuring that the future legislation will take into consideration retirement villages and communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Absolutely. It is extremely important; if the noble Baroness was in the Chamber last night she would have heard us talking about the planning system as well, making it clear that with an ageing population we need to consider homes of all types for older people in the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, have Ministers noted the large number of leasehold ground rent investments on property auction sites, as landlords, aware of potential changes in the law affecting valuations, offload their leasehold ground rent investments? Innocent non-professional buyers, ignorant of potential changes in the law, are now buying them—caveat emptor—placing themselves at risk of substantial loss. Should government not consider secondary legislation which would alert an innocent market to the dangers of buying these leasehold ground rent investments?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord brings up a very interesting point. I will take it back to the department and we will discuss it further. These are the sorts of issues that LEASE will be helping potential buyers work their way through.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, since there is a considerable challenge in the housing market, arising partly from Grenfell and the related programme, and there is a shortage of homes at every single level, is this not a case where His Majesty’s Government need to move with speed but also with thoroughness before we take any action?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Leaseholder issues are complex and contain a lot of legal issues that need to be dealt with. Therefore, we need to take our time, and we are doing so, but the government manifesto says that we will deal with this issue within this Parliament, and we intend to do so.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that freeholders have been empowered to impose the costs of any litigation that has been initiated by an aggrieved leaseholder upon that leaseholder. When will that extraordinary anomaly in British law be corrected?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government recognise that the existing statutory requirements do not go far enough to enable leaseholders to identify and challenge those unfair costs. We believe that leaseholders should not be subject to unfair legal costs and should be able to claim them from their landlords, and we are taking action to address that.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, in 2020 the Law Commission recommended commonhold ownership as an option. I thought the Minister committed to that in her Answer. Can she tell us how the Government see this proceeding, and is it one of the principal options that the Government are looking at?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government are looking at all options but, as the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions, we are looking at commonhold.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the only potential benefit I can see is inserting restrictions on non-conforming developments, which the leasehold system provides. It is a good start to call the system outdated and feudal, but can non-conforming developments be prevented by other means, such as the planning system?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The planning system will have to be looked into, but I can say that, interestingly, through the recent rent Act, new builds are now no longer or are very rarely leasehold—they are now freehold—so the developers themselves are looking at this. It is more complex in flats and with multiple occupancy, but in terms of houses very few leasehold properties are available.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend the Minister will be aware that in many cases the freeholder is a local authority. Can she advise us on what conversations her department has had with local authorities across the country, or representative bodies of local authorities, to make sure that they make it easier for leaseholders to acquire their properties?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will write to the noble Lord with all the details of those conversations. They are being had, but I will give him more information when I write.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can I just draw the Minister’s attention to some of the excellent Private Members’ Bills, including my own, which seek to address some of the issues that the Minister herself wants to address?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I certainly hope that we get our Bill in before the noble Lord’s.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, community land trusts, co-housing schemes and co-operatives offer different models focused on building community, delivering for the common good rather than focusing on individual profit. Will the Government look into how they can strongly support these creative, innovative models of housing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government do support those forms of housing. We will continue to do so and will look into how we can support them more in the future.
Data Protection
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce legislation on the United Kingdom’s data protection framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 8 March. It seizes our post-Brexit opportunity to create a new UK data rights regime. It will now be subject to the usual parliamentary processes, starting with Second Reading in the other place, the date for which will be announced in due course.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I first welcome the Minister to his new role on the Front Bench, particularly given his undoubted expertise. However, I must ask him whether he understands the concerns of many at the proposal to allow NHS data to be uploaded to a data system based on tech from Palantir—of Cambridge Analytica infamy—that will offer inadequate data protection to patients? These concerns have only been increased by the Secretary of State’s claim that one of the purposes of the Bill is to give organisations greater confidence about the circumstances
“in which they can process personal data without consent.”
In other words, the Bill will reduce protection to individuals, not increase it, with one result being that some people will not seek the medical attention that they require.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. My first observation is that Palantir is a very good illustration of some of the new technology providers we are seeing, because the value it was able to provide and demonstrate is very great. However, the perfectly legitimate concerns about data privacy are, none the less, equally great. Any organisation operating in the UK or processing the personal data of people in the UK must comply with our strong and internationally renowned data protection laws, and those laws set out robust penalties for those who do not, including, as necessary, Palantir. Lastly, with respect to the Secretary of State’s remarks, the intention is by no means to reduce the requirement for data protection, merely in some cases to make it more straightforward to demonstrate that the requirements are being met.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble Viscount to the Dispatch Box in his role as the first Minister for AI and IP—I think it is the first time those two responsibilities have been joined together. I wish him every success. Given that there is a new data protection Bill in the Commons, does he agree that it would be highly damaging to our AI developers if we were to diverge too widely from the EU GDPR and risk access to the datasets on which they rely so heavily?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his expertise and knowledge in the area, of which I look forward to taking full advantage. The EU adequacy requirements are uppermost in our minds in continuing our ability to maintain the data relationship with it. I note that EU adequacy does not set out any particular legislative requirements to maintain adequacy, judged as it is on outcomes of data protection rather than its specific mechanisms. I am told that there are currently 14 jurisdictions that meet EU adequacy but have different legislative approaches to acquiring it. Our well-founded ambition is to be among them as well.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and declare my technology interest. Does he agree that data is completely pervasive and all around us, that data literacy is critical and should be taught from the kindergarten right through life, and that data privacy is a key element of such data literacy teaching?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and pay tribute to his well-known expertise in the area. Public confidence in the huge mass of data and in the changing systems and tools that use it is absolutely key. This goes into AI, cybersecurity and a range of other areas. That is why education for public confidence will be a key part of the Government’s strategy.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I suggest that the Minister looks at the EU’s data adequacy decision. It is 52 pages long. The decision is a dynamic one and comes up for renewal on 27 June 2025, which is quite close by. It was good to hear that the Government are having regard to all the various international data adequacy decisions that we benefit from, but I suggest that it is important to engage in conversation and discussions with the EU to bring it along. This is quite complex, and its decision is quite nuanced.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his suggestion. We will of course be engaging with the EU throughout, and we are under no illusions as to the importance of maintaining our adequacy arrangements with the EU.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount to his new position. He says that the new Bill should be an opportunity to develop data regulations to put Britain at the forefront of the data revolution. However, instead of setting out a clear regime for the sector, it further complicates what is an overcomplex legislative area. I urge the noble Viscount to work with the Labour Party to ensure that this Bill is what the country needs, rather than just a series of patchwork amendments and more sweeping powers.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words of welcome. I am absolutely willing to work with the Labour Party. I do not believe there is an ideological divide in approach, but more a pragmatic question of how we get this done. I observe that the overall economic impact of the Bill will contribute £4.7 billion of growth over the next 10 years; it is important to bear that in mind. When we discuss the Bill further, the noble Lord may come to feel that the characterisation of it as patchwork or disorganised is not entirely fair, but I look forward to working with him.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place. The AI regulation policy paper published last July set out a framework for fostering responsible innovation in AI. It included principles such as ensuring AI is secure and operates as designed, is transparent and explainable, and embeds principles of fairness and redress. Given the accelerating LLM models and their rapid inclusion in daily life, can the Minister give the House some idea of how these principles might be included in the upcoming Bill?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The AI regulation White Paper is due for publication next week and my noble friend will see a lot of that detail set out in it. I observe for the time being that the approach is, as far as possible, to maintain sectoral regulation where it is but apply the principles that she mentioned over the top of it. I look forward to working with her on the AI White Paper, which I hope will set her concerns to rest.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, following up previous questions on adequacy, the Minister will be aware that these are ultimately matters for the European Court of Justice, where any Commission decisions can be challenged—and are often struck down, as the United States has found to its cost. Given the likelihood that any decisions of adequacy in respect of the revised UK law will be challenged, what preparations are the Government making so that they are out there, defending the interests of British business in front of the European Court of Justice in future? That is an easy question for the Minister’s first day out.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and am always very much in favour of easy questions. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, we will indeed be engaging with the EU, as he suggests. I share his view that this is something we have to take extremely seriously and have proper preparation and engagement throughout.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and his new role. In this new role, particularly its AI aspects, can he go across government—particularly into the MoD—to look at the use of AI and weapon systems and how that is moving forward, because there are some worrying areas?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the Lord for his welcome. I should declare that I was previously a member of the Committee on AI and Weapon Systems before taking up my ministerial post. As for the niceties of the machinery of government, I must confess that I do not yet understand them, but I am very happy to write to the noble Lord once I understand more.
Avanti West Coast
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goddard of Stockport
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they justify further extending the contract for Avanti West Coast, given its service record over the last six months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, Avanti was awarded a six-month contract in October 2022 to provide the opportunity for its recovery plan to yield demonstrable improvements. It has done this, with services increased and delays and cancellations reduced. In this next six-month period, Avanti will need to do more to win back passengers with a reliable and dependable service. With accountability comes the chance to put things right.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister for another magnificent effort in defending the indefensible. My question is quite simple. Will she agree to meet with me, as a frequent flyer on Avanti trains, to hear the other side of the coin? Tuesday’s Hansard reports her commenting that not all train delays are due to Avanti, which is true. The other side of the coin is that Avanti has completely changed the rosters and rotas for staff. They are now on 10 and 11-hour shifts, meaning that they have a 20-minute window at any station they land at before leaving it. If the train is 30 minutes late, there is no time to change. The next train is then late, and it is an ever-decreasing circle. This is affecting the staff.
The Minister also commented about sickness levels. Staff on Avanti trains feel undervalued and overworked, which cannot be a recipe for an outward-facing railway system. If Avanti cannot treat its staff with respect when all they want to do is give us a good service, somebody else should be looking after that railway system.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would be very happy to meet with the noble Lord to discuss Avanti, but I hope to offer him something slightly better—a meeting with the Rail Minister. I will extend that offer to all noble Lords so that we might discuss the issues that they are experiencing on Avanti. He might be able to reassure the noble Lord that we are taking these issues very seriously and want Avanti to put them right.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, as a Scottish user of Avanti, I hope the Minister understands the despair that we felt when we heard this decision. On the west coast, we look in envy at the east coast trains. Can she explain why the west coast line was not taken into public ownership after such a disastrous performance?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am aware of some of the challenges of travelling down the west coast from Scotland. Many of them are due to infrastructure changes happening in the north of England. Sometimes it is tempting to compare the west coast with the east coast. One other element of the east coast that is worth thinking about is that it has competition. There are open-access operators on the east coast as well. That is a contributing factor to making the services better all round.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the severe delays and disruption caused by TransPennine Express, which seems to be competing very well with Avanti on its record. Will she update the House on the Government’s plans for a possible renewal of such a hopeless operator? Will it be allowed more time, or will it be put out to tender for other franchise operators?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The current contract for TransPennine Express comes to an end on 28 May. It too is under a recovery plan, but TransPennine Express and Avanti have one thing in common that no other train operating company shares: they have suffered the immediate and simultaneous withdrawal of rest-day working by the trade unions. That has had an enormous impact on their services. It is worth bearing in mind that no other train operating company has had that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is disappointing to hear the Minister again blaming the workforce for the problems of Avanti. Rail passengers in the north-west and Wales will have greeted the six-month extension to Avanti’s contract with incredulity. Over the past six months it has broken records for delays and cancellations yet, astonishingly, earlier this week the Times reported that the Government could offer Avanti a further 10-year extension at the end of this six-month extension. Can the Minister please now rule this out?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am absolutely not blaming the workforce here. I have never said that I was, but the noble Baroness will be unsurprised to hear that I am putting a little blame at the door of the trade unions. On the process for the next round of contracts for the west coast—because there will have to be a contract—the publication of the 10-year period was a statutory notice. Should it go to Avanti, the six-month contracts would be taken off it. Should it go to another operator, it might be for up to 10 years. The noble Baroness should not read too much into it; it could be any period up to 10 years.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as a fellow traveller on Avanti, often in the same coach as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I agree entirely with his comments. It is not only that trains are delayed or cancelled; sometimes the services on those trains are not provided, particularly food. These are long journeys and often at the very last moment, when you are sitting on the train and have been told that there will be food, you are then told, “We haven’t been able to load the food; there are no refreshments on the journey”. Can we please bear in mind that it is a whole service? The staff are wonderful, but they are labouring against impossible circumstances at the moment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is entirely right. That is one of the things on which we hold Avanti to account. Passenger experience is at the heart of what we want to do with our railway system, and as we look to the future for Avanti, and indeed for all train operating companies, passenger experience is one of the key things that they are judged on.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, since Avanti has been rewarded with more after such a record of failure, what incentive is there for other train operating companies to maintain the highest standards and to improve? When the Minister gave us her answers on the Statement the day before yesterday, she was not specific. Can she make clear now whether Avanti will face financial penalties for its failures over recent months?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
All train operating companies face financial penalties or financial jeopardy from their performance, as all train operating companies have performance fees. When the current period comes to an end at the end of March, there will be an independent evaluation of Avanti’s performance, and performance fees will be set accordingly. Two issues really impact performance at the moment—the ongoing issues around train crew and availability, and growing concerns around infrastructure, which is why our reforms to bring track and train closer together are so vital.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the last quarter of 2022, Avanti achieved a historic low, with only 45% of its trains on time? Sad character that I am, I have looked back through the statistics on train travel on the west coast main line. That 45% low never happened under British Rail, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway or the London and North Western Railway. I gave up when it came to the London and Birmingham Railway in the 19th century because I was bored with my own research. Is it fair or right that, despite that historic low, taxpayers should fund dividends to shareholders and bonuses to management while those of us who travel regularly on Avanti would rather walk than catch a train?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lord that currently 90% of Avanti trains arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled arrival time. That is up from 75% in early January. I am sure that noble Lords can see the trajectory. The dividend to which he refers related to a financial period to March 2021, well over two years ago now and not related to the current performance issues.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I have been travelling on the west coast line for more than 40 years. Admittedly this is anecdotal, but my experience was that until Covid the service was actually quite good on Avanti. So was Virgin before Avanti. It was certainly better than the east coast line, quite apart from the fact that the east coast line went to Edinburgh whereas the west coast line went to the fair city of Glasgow.
Twice the Minister has mentioned infrastructure problems. Historically that was the problem with the east coast line, but there was sufficient investment to improve it. What is the nature of the infrastructure problems on the west coast line and why have they not been dealt with in the 13 years that the Government have been in charge?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are putting record investment into our railway infrastructure. There are two issues around infrastructure. The first is the long-term plans that need to be put in place to upgrade it, but there are also short-term issues. For example, overnight there was cable theft at Wolverhampton. Cable theft is not Avanti’s fault, but it has caused some of its trains to be delayed this morning. We have to clamp down on the short-term problems but also continue to invest in the west coast main line, which is exactly what we are doing.
Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 20 February be approved.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2023)
Baroness Randerson
“(5) Regulations made under this section in relation to strikes affecting services in an area for which an elected mayor is responsible may not be made without the consent of the elected mayor for that area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the consent of the relevant elected mayor before minimum service levels could be set in relation to an area for which an elected mayor was responsible.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the group starting with Amendment 14 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. This group is all about devolution. The Government have hyped up their commitment to devolution in England, so Amendment 14 is in line with the proposals in the levelling-up Bill and in Bills on the powers of existing mayoral authorities. In England, an increasing number of those have great powers over transport—for example, bus franchises—so it is logical that elected mayors should be consulted by the Government before they intervene with minimum service levels.
I move on to Amendments 19 and 49 in my name, which refer to the much stronger devolution that has existed in Wales and Scotland and, we hope, will be returned in Northern Ireland in due course. Amendment 19 refers to Part 1 of the Schedule, which relates to minimum service level regulations that may be applied by UK Government Ministers to the list of services specified in the Bill. The key point is that most of these services—health, fire and rescue, education and most of transport—are devolved. Only the decommissioning of nuclear installations, management of radioactive waste and so on, and border security are reserved matters falling to the UK Government. Once again, we have this Government riding roughshod over the core business of devolution. Even border security could be argued to be a very legitimate interest to the devolved Administrations. For example, the Welsh Government owns and runs Cardiff Airport, and that would clearly be directly affected if there were a dispute with border security staff. Similarly, the safe and efficient operation of the several very important and significant Welsh ports is of direct concern to the Welsh Government. In practice, you could not impose a minimum service level without consultation and close co-operation.
I need to point out here that the Welsh Government have a much more positive relationship with public sector trade unions than that between the UK Government and trade unions in England. Although they have not totally avoided strike action in Wales recently, it has certainly been much less intense and acrimonious. The Welsh Government have adopted more of a social partnership approach, and we have seen none of the provocative rhetoric that we have seen in England.
Amendment 19 is very modest: it simply asks for an obligation for proper consultation with Welsh and Scottish Ministers before regulations are made. It reflects similar provisions in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It specifies that a senior Minister of the Crown should undertake this consultation because we have lately had repeated evidence that this Government have failed to interact at the appropriate level with Ministers in the devolved Administrations, whom they seem, on occasion, to regard as insignificant juniors. Very recently, in the debate on the retained EU law Bill, we were repeatedly referred to officials as the appropriate level for such links. If the UK Government decide to intervene to specify minimum service levels for devolved services, that is a political decision, and the very least that they should do is ensure that Ministers take the lead in that political process.
Quite apart from the need to respect devolution, there is considerable scope for confusion if the UK Government decide to define what they regard as an MSL without close liaison with the devolved Administrations. Let us take health as an example: waiting times for treatment are defined differently in Wales and England, as are ambulance response times, so one size definitely does not fit all. The very simple Amendment 49 takes a much more radical approach. By leaving out “Wales and Scotland”, it would limit the extent of the Bill to England. That would reflect the points that I made previously: most of the public services specified are devolved, and even those which are not have a close interaction with devolved services.
During the pandemic, for instance, we became acutely aware of the differences in organisation and ethos between the UK Government’s approach and that taken, for instance, in Wales, but which I also observed in Scotland. There are plenty of stresses in the delivery of Welsh public services. I do not defend the current standard of some of those. They are under acute stress. If this comes to a head in the form of strikes, it is unlikely that dictation from the outside by the UK Government will help the situation.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that the UK Government are just the Government for England when we talk about strikes in schools or in the NHS, for instance, and other services specified in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 49. All the points arise in relation to it, so I do not think it necessary to go into the other amendments. I will make six points.
First, I do not believe that it is contested that a number of the services covered by the Bill are effectively within the control of the Governments of the nations of Scotland and Wales, and that is reflected everywhere in the consultation that has so far been made. However, when you take that, you have to consider whether you can disentangle services during periods of strikes from services elsewhere. On our previous day in Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, eloquently put why it is quite impossible to disentangle them. What I simply do not understand at the moment is why, if you have a minimum standard on a strike day, that is not the minimum standard across all these areas on every other day. How can the public be expected to think that in strikes there is a minimum standard? There is not.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, used what I said earlier in aid of his arguments, I thought I ought to say a few words. First, unfortunately I do not speak for the Government in any respect. Indeed, the Government are generally to the left of my views, so my views are indeed my own. I have said that this Bill is about protecting service levels, in particular for those who have paid through their taxes for public services to be provided to them. That is the aim of the Bill. The means of the Bill is via trade union and industrial relations legislation. That is a reserved matter, and I think the Government have to accept the point.
Having said that, I of course agree that the devolved Administrations should be consulted on minimum service levels because they are bound to affect their citizens. I believe that the devolved Administrations would want to be involved in any consultation, to put across the views of their citizens as to the appropriate minimum service levels that their citizens should be demanding. However, I do not think it goes beyond that, and I do not think it is necessary to go to the extent of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which talks about meaningful consultation. They are of course going to be consulted on these matters.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, introduced Amendment 14, she very carefully said that elected mayors should be consulted. That is not what Amendment 14 says. It says that regulations cannot be made
“without the consent of the elected mayor for that area.”
That would mean, for example, that any minimum service level which affected a train service between London and Manchester could be vetoed by either the elected Mayor of Greater Manchester or the elected Mayor of London—or indeed Birmingham. That seems to me to be complete nonsense. I believe they should be consulted because they will want to input the views that protect services for the residents in their areas, but we should not go as far as requiring consent.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendments 19 and 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which try to mitigate in one and contain in the other the level of interference that the Bill intends to make into areas that are clearly devolved. This is in a long line of legislation that has trampled over the accepted responsibilities of devolved Governments. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the Nationality and Borders Act, the Subsidy Control Act, the Elections Act, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the retained EU law Bill are just a few of the Bills that have impacted on the devolved Administrations.
On this occasion, in the Bill’s list of six services to be targeted I found only one that was reserved and that was border security, though I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that airports and ports will be dragged into that. Health services, education, fire and rescue services, transport services and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are devolved responsibilities, and the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd are ultimately accountable for the delivery of these services. The Minister and his colleagues have no electoral mandate to interfere in these services. Not only does the Bill seek to allow government Ministers to interfere in devolved areas of competency but it does not even have the good manners to outline in the body of the Bill how they would use these powers. Parliament is yet again being asked to put its name to a blank cheque.
It may surprise the Minister to know that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have respectful working relationships with trade unions in their countries. In Scotland, the fair work framework has a different model of industrial relations from that adopted by the UK Government. The framework states that there are many examples in Scotland and elsewhere of how the collective voice of trade unions working with employers has addressed the wide range of organisational challenges and contributed to organisational improvements. The Welsh Government are committed to the Fair Work Commission in Wales, which respects and encourages trade unions to have a significant role in workplaces, society and policy-making. How different that is from the approach taken by this Government. These fair work arrangements do not prevent industrial disputes but allow constructive dialogue between government, employers and trade unions, so that when disputes occur there is greater good will to resolve them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and to add to her remarks. I strongly support Amendment 49 and point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the phrase in Amendment 19 of consultation implying a view to meeting an agreement is particularly important because in this Bill we are talking about devolved competencies directly, and I am afraid the track record has not been that good. Indeed, the Bill seems to have been announced without any prior consultation with the Welsh Government at all, and officials have been reluctant to share substantive information relating to the Bill which is not in the public domain but does affect devolved competencies.
In paragraph 141 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act it would seem that legislative consent is required over aspects of health, education, fire and rescue, and certain transport services. But the Welsh Government appear to be set to vote overwhelmingly to refuse legislative consent, and for good reason. As the Government themselves have conceded, the services are
“run differently in England, Scotland and Wales and are the responsibility of Scottish and Welsh Governments respectively.”
With that responsibility comes a requirement to set pay and terms and conditions of service, and those cannot be disentangled from strategic and operational decisions taken in Wales and Scotland. To give those powers to Westminster and override the devolved legislations would effectively undermine their ability to run the services that they run as effectively as they see fit to meet the needs of the population—the population which have voted those devolved Ministers into their positions in government.
There is a different approach to the unions, as has already been said. There is a model of social partnership, which I am familiar with in Wales. It was notable that, even going back to 2015, the junior doctors did not go on strike in Wales whereas they did in England, and the current rail strikes have shown a different pattern of working because an agreement was made with Transport for Wales.
It certainly is not incidental that this has been included in the Bill, because it threatens the Welsh Government’s ability to maintain a model that is interwoven with those responsibilities, as I have said. In fact, those services are essential to the running of the devolved nations. The approach would undermine accountability in Wales, as the Bill provides no role for the Senedd, despite the strong argument that it has the competences to legislate in areas contained in the Bill. The Secretary of State being able to set minimum service levels for local services in most parts of England is already questioned by some, but it seems almost an affront to devolved responsibilities to say that that could override the responsibilities in the devolved nations.
The consultation process set out in the Bill fails to specify who should be consulted; it is whoever the Secretary of State sees fit, and they do not seem to have to pay regard to the outcome of that consultation. That means there is no role for the Welsh Ministers, who are actually responsible for running the services. If the Bill is passed, the backdrop to negotiations undertaken in Wales will be fundamentally altered. There is a concern—a valid one, I think—that that could be used for political ends, because there is no protection in the Bill from a Secretary of State who wishes to provoke or prolong a dispute for political ends.
Sadly, no Minister in Wales or Scotland can take comfort from assurances given and being told that they will be consulted. Similar assurances were provided over the financial powers in the internal markets Act, but those are now being used to ensure that Welsh Ministers cannot take the decisions over EU successor funds provided in the form of the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund. I hope the Committee will see that in order to maintain the integrity of the UK, it will be important to take Wales, Scotland and, I think, Northern Ireland out of the wording in the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Has the noble Baroness realised that the Bill does not actually require any employer in Wales to issue a work notice? The only thing that the Secretary of State will be doing is setting minimum service standards. The implementation via work notices is entirely at the option of the employers, which will be either the Welsh Government or one of the various Welsh bodies that are answerable to the Welsh Government. I understand the point that she was trying to make, but she was implying that the UK Government were interfering in the operation of the services, which the Bill does not come close to doing.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I remind the noble Baroness that we have already had a debate over the difficulty of setting minimum service levels and the dangers thereof. Minimum levels for nursing have already been set in Wales, for example, so we cannot disentangle the one from the other. That is the point that I was trying to make.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
Yes—“Come into my parlour”.
I attended the Wales TUC and the Scottish TUC for well over a decade—some might say I do not have a home to go to. That helped me to understand the completely different cultures of those countries and the completely different relationship that the workforce, the trade unions, employers, Governments and successive Administrations had with each other, and the respect that successive Governments had with the trade unions. It is not just that this is a damaging Bill; it is an affront to those countries that there should be some imposition of power. That is what we are talking about, not whether employers should be forced to issue a work notice but that there will be an overall power, the details of which are not known, which the Welsh and Scottish Administrations will have to accept.
We are talking here about the tone of employment relations, which has always been completely different. It has been conducted in a non-legalistic way. There have been as many strikes, and I am not saying that the services are particularly better in Wales or Scotland, but the tone of the relationship is what could be so badly damaged.
It was most interesting at Question Time today for those noble Lords who were here to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, talking about the distinction between the workforce and the trade unions. I have been trying to make the point all along that this Government are doing their best to separate trade unions from their workforce. The noble Baroness was very keen to assure the House that she was not blaming the workforce for people not doing non-contractual rest-day work; she was blaming the trade unions for those members not doing non-contractual rest-day work. That in any case is a bad practice that has grown up over the years, which has really been because members have wanted a better standard of living, but are we really saying that a minimum service level will have to include this non-contractual rest-day working, or will it not include it? Or will it not be mentioned at all in any document?
The Minister is shaking his head and smiling. I realise that he must be getting very fed up of listening to all of this. Maybe that will help the Government next time to bring forward a Bill that actually has some content in, and then he will not be so bored.
I do not know how many people here watched “Boys from the Blackstuff”—some Members are certainly too young for that—but I am reminded of the character called Yosser Hughes, who went around saying “Gis a job”. In this case it is the Government saying, “Gis a power. We don’t know what we’re going to do with it, we can’t tell you yet, we promise to consult you, but gis a power.” I think the Government are hoping that, if they carry on repeating that for long enough, everyone will sit back and say, “Oh all right, let’s see what they do with it”. As far as I am concerned, that is the main principle: the Government are asking us to give them a power and not telling us how they will use it.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, there is a feeling growing up or being put around this House that somehow the Conservative Benches are historically against trade unions. These Benches are not historically against them. I spent 25 years in the European Parliament, and my noble friend the Minister spent some years there. I spent some time on the European Economic and Social Committee, which, as with Scotland and Wales, bases itself on trying to get a consensual view of industrial relations. If you want to improve the wealth of the country, that is the way forward. That is what made the German economy as successful as it is today: the works councils and the compulsory consultation. We seem to be in danger of drifting in the opposite direction, but I remind the Minister that the great tradition of Christian democracy in Europe, which has a much wider following than conservatism, is based on working between social partners.
This legislation is, let us say, imperfect. It has great difficulties and is almost unworkable, and I do not know why the Government are pursuing it. I hope that maybe at the end of this series of debates they will decide to pause it and not go forward. As these amendments show, it is going to be very difficult to implement, even if the Government wanted to. Set aside the local mayors, which I think are impractical; railway trains run between our countries and planes fly between them, while I am told that some services, such as organs and blood in the health service, are organised on a national basis so that people can get the best service wherever they live. We are after all in a United Kingdom, as this party often says.
I ask the Minister to look at hitting the pause button on this piece of legislation because even if it is passed it will not work, and it is not good government to pass legislation that just will not work.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister, when he comes to sum up, if he could clarify for the Committee why he was shaking his head so strongly over his experience in the European Parliament? I think it would be quite helpful to clarify that, given the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly valuable discussion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is absolutely right. One of the problems we have is that, in the past, good governance was Green Papers, White Papers, a debate about policy and then a considered approach to what sort of legislation would be appropriate. The other thing we are jumping around between is the question: is this about minimum service levels, or is it a power grab by the Government?
The reality is that we have minimum service levels, but they are negotiated locally, taking in many factors. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are talking about devolved matters. It is the responsibility of the Welsh and Scottish Governments to set up and organise their health, education and other services. It is not just about the devolution settlement. I have heard Government Ministers, on the levelling-up agenda, talk about how we want to push responsibility locally. But suddenly that sort of politics goes out of the window when it comes to trade unions. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said about his party, but the simple fact is that this is a power grab by Ministers.
We will no doubt hear the Minister respond that work notices are a matter for employers, and no one is forcing people. Let me ask the question: if the Minister is going to set the minimum service levels but a local authority, a devolved mayor or the Welsh Government do not force through work notices, will that leave those authorities that fail to implement it in the way the Government suggest open to legal action? Will they face a challenge from those who claim they were denied services? We need a very clear answer to that question. The Bill was published without any consultation of the people who will have the responsibility to deal with it and implement it. Even the consultations taking place now are using language that I find difficult to understand, in terms of the responsibilities of devolved authorities and local mayors.
I am trying to avoid being repetitive—I know that will get the Minister’s head nodding—but fundamentally we will keep coming back to certain principles. Let us just focus on these amendments and have some clear answers to questions. If it is down to the devolved Administrations and local mayors to determine something, does it leave them vulnerable to legal challenge?
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Lord might like to note that, as we were sitting, we received an email from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which partially responds to his question. It would be rather helpful if we could have letters from Ministers with some notice, rather than simultaneous to our arrival in this Committee. It reinforces the uncertainty around legal redress, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, just made.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord drawing that to my attention. I have not had the opportunity to read the email, so maybe I will be jumping back up when the Minister responds and I have been able to read it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their amendments. Amendments 14, 19 and 49 relate to devolved matters, either via devolved Governments or local government. Amendment 14 seeks to require the consent of elected mayors before minimum service levels could be set in an area for which an elected mayor is responsible. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right to point out that this is unworkable. Consultations have been published on minimum service levels for ambulance, fire and rail services, and we welcome the engagement of elected mayors on those consultations. Similarly, Amendment 19 seeks to require consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers before minimum service level regulations are made in Scotland or Wales, with a view to reaching an agreement. Amendment 49 seeks to limit the territorial extent of the Bill to England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised concerns about the impact of this legislation on devolution, and this is an important issue. However, employment rights and duties and industrial relations are reserved in Scotland and Wales. That said, I reassure her and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that my noble friend the Minister met both the Welsh and Scottish Governments to discuss the Bill.
The Government have a duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of citizens across the United Kingdom. The disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public are no less severe on people in Scotland and Wales or on those living in areas with elected mayors. They have every right to expect the Government to act to ensure that they can continue to access vital public services during strikes.
The Government therefore resist these amendments. However, as I said earlier, nothing in the Bill requires an employer, which might include a devolved Government or an elected mayor, to issue a work notice. That would include the example of Cardiff Airport that the noble Baroness cited.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
On that point, which is repeatedly coming up, would the noble Baroness be able to assure the Committee that we can have a clause in the Bill—because courts sometimes interpret “may” as meaning “shall”—that makes it very clear that no legal obligation whatever rests on any person whatever to implement the minimum standards set out in the Bill, unless the employer decides to implement a notice? If the case the Government are making is that the Bill has no effect unless the employer does something, that needs to be spelled out with crystal clarity. If the Ministers would like, I will have a go at drafting a clause to save the overburdened so-called parliamentary counsel.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I repeat at the Dispatch Box that under the Bill it is a statutory discretion and not a statutory duty for employers as to whether to issue a work notice. It is a matter for the employer to consider any contractual or other legal obligations it has in taking this decision.
We of course hope that all employers will want to apply minimum service levels where they are needed. In reference to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, I say that, before making minimum service level regulations, government departments need to consult on the appropriate minimum service for their sectors. This will enable detailed evidence to inform the development of minimum service levels in specific services. This includes understanding the differences between services in each sector across Great Britain and the implications for setting minimum service levels. We will continue to engage with the devolved Governments on the geographical scope of the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, is correct that of course we would rather have a negotiated agreement on minimum service levels. I also reiterate, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on why my noble friend was shaking his head, that we think there has been a misunderstanding. There is no statutory duty but, as I said, rather a statutory discretion under the Bill for employers to issue work notices.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does the Minister understand the concern and the problem? “May” can become “must” if someone sues an employer for not having issued work notices, on the basis that the Secretary of State took the view that a minimum service level requirement should be there but the employer chose not to issue work notices but to carry on negotiating, et cetera, and a third party then challenges that discretion and the more gentle decision made under it. That is how “may” can become “must”, and that means litigation, cost and more aggravation. I believe that this is the concern that was expressed by the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench last time and put so eloquently today by the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I hear and understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I default to the Government’s position: the Bill gives only a statutory discretion, not a statutory duty, to the employer on whether to issue a work notice.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will pursue this “may/must” argument from a slightly different direction. One of the arguments made in the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is that the unsatisfactory nature of the current situation is that the Government were unable to secure a national agreement from the ambulance services on the level of cover. The Minister will be aware that we do not have a national ambulance service; we have a series of ambulance services across the country. Under the “may/must” doctrine that the Minister set out, it is perfectly possible that one ambulance service in one area “must”, while another one chooses not to; in other words, we would still have a patchy service across the United Kingdom and the Government would have failed to achieve the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, set out in his letter. So, given the good faith that I put in the Minister’s comments, I do not understand what problem this solves, because the compulsion—or lack of it—within the Bill means that we still do not have a national agreement on service levels.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Government’s position is that we would rather have a voluntary agreement than a compulsion to issue notices. Of course, we would hope that each employer would choose to accept minimum service levels, because the Government are here to protect the level of service available to all UK citizens, not just those in England.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Baroness has set up a whole new stream of thought because now she is saying that there is an ability for government to compel the employer to give a notice. We all hope that there will be voluntary agreement—that is where we are now, and it is what the Bill seeks to undermine.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not accept the noble Lord’s points at all, but I will continue my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Of course, we would rather have a negotiated agreement on minimum service levels, but the Government resist these amendments. I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords—I feel I have not entirely—on “may” versus “must” and the compulsion, the statutory discretion or the statutory duty. With those comments, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister and all who took part in this useful debate. We started with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who pinpointed the persistent erosion of devolution. He called the Bill “Henry VIII on stilts”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, called it “Gis a power”—I think both phrases will stick in our memories. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that of course the devolved Administrations will be consulted, but the problem is that, persistently, they have not been consulted at the right levels and the right point in time. There has been a thin façade of last-minute, low-level consultation, and this has not worked—it is not consultation in the proper sense of that word. The Minister did not reassure me when she said that it was complete nonsense that elected mayors should need to give consent—that shows a lack of understanding of the concept of proper consultation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, gave us a useful long list of recent Bills that have undermined devolution—I will copy it out when I read Hansard so that I remember each one. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, took the points further by raising the fear that UK Ministers would use powers in the Bill for political ends. The truth is that this is a heavily political issue and, in England, the wrong sort of political interference has created problems in industrial relations that have not existed in Scotland and Wales to the same extent, because industrial relations have been handled with more sensitivity there. I have no doubt that the UK Government have their own reasons for wishing to sharpen relations with the unions, but that is nevertheless a political issue.
Lord Allan of Hallam
“(5) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a statement outlining how the regulations are both necessary and proportionate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to outline why regulations made under this section are necessary and proportionate before making them.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have repeatedly said that we are talking about last-resort measures that they are reluctant to, and hope they will not have to, introduce. In this group, we will test the extent to which they genuinely see these as last-resort measures.
Collectively, the amendments could be described as seeking to introduce additional elements of friction, before the Government move to regulating for these minimum service levels. Friction can be a useful thing in the right places: if I wish to enter my own house, I would like that to be as frictionless as possible, but if the police would like to enter it to carry out a search, I would like there to be a reasonable level of friction, with them having to prove why they have the ability or need to do that, and to go before a court to have their need tested in front of others. So, here, we are trying to put those kinds of friction in place so that Ministers do not do what we fear: rush to regulate in the heat of action in the same way that they have rushed to bring this legislation before us in the first place.
Amendment 15 in my name uses two concepts that are familiar to those who work with human rights legislation—the notions of necessity and proportionality. I am not practised in public human rights law, so I will defer to the noble Broness, Lady Chakrabarti, who I am sure will have things to say on this group of amendments. However, I have had to make decisions on freedom of expression and surveillance questions on online platforms where these tests are useful and applied because they seek to balance different rights that we have. It has been generally accepted in our debates that we are talking about fundamental human rights here—the right of an individual to withdraw their labour. When considering whether the Government in the public interest can override that right, these necessity and proportionality tests are the right ones, just as they are in other contexts such as freedom of expression and surveillance.
I am sure that the Government in their response will refer to the human rights certification that is on the front page of every piece of legislation and say that it is an implicit commitment. Of course, no British Government could ever not apply tests of necessity and proportionality because they have signed off the legislation as compliant. However, there are significant advantages to making these tests explicit in this section of the Bill.
The amendment would force the Minister to consider the tests and to apply them explicitly before making regulations, and to publish their deliberations for scrutiny. In practice, this would mean that the Minister would have to ask the team that is putting together the case for the regulations to show its workings; this would have significant value if those workings were available to all of us. That is not least of defensive value for the Government, because at some point they will have to explain why they felt compelled to make the regulations and why they passed the threshold.
I look first at the necessity test. The Minister would need to be satisfied that all other avenues had been tried, which in this case largely means negotiated agreements to provide cover. The risk with the Bill as it stands is that Ministers will be satisfied with vague assurances. They will ask, “Did you ask for voluntary cover?” “Yes, Minister, we did.” “Did they agree?” “No, Minister, they didn’t.” “Okay, let’s move to a regulation.” The test may be no more than that and, indeed, in the letter that has just arrived from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which we are now considering, one senses an element of that with the Government’s argument around ambulance services: “We asked; we didn’t get one and we therefore now need this piece of legislation.” That is not good enough and, if this is truly a last resort power, we want the Minister to press for all avenues to have been explored including the potential offer of carrots to the workforce for agreeing to provide minimum services, as has happened in many other countries. We debated that at length on the first day of Committee. It is not simply a question of employers ordering their workforces to provide minimum service levels; in many institutions there is a negotiated agreement whereby something is offered to the workforce in return for providing minimum service levels. What we do not want is a necessity test that bypasses and ignores that option altogether. By putting that explicitly in the Bill, the Minister would have to be satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken and there was no other way in which to guarantee minimum service levels. That is the right necessity test when one is overriding somebody’s fundamental rights, as we have all agreed is happening in this case.
I turn now to the proportionality test. It is included to make sure the provision is done properly. There is a risk of a superficial version of this test—one which is effectively a cost-benefit analysis. We have seen this again in the context of the ambulance debate. The Government will argue that the benefits of having life-saving ambulance cover outweigh the cost of some workers not being able to strike. At that superficial level that sounds reasonable, but it is not a true proportionality test. To do that properly we need to dig into the next level, where we look at the likely actual impacts. There are two areas where the proportionality test might be more complex. First, if there is any likelihood that workers could end up being dismissed—as we have accepted is a potential outcome of this legislation—in this case the costs are dramatically different and that equation would change. Providing emergency cover versus dismissal of workers is a different test from emergency cover versus simply losing the right to strike.
Secondly, if the regulations did not result in more people showing up for work—for example, because people take other forms of industrial action, which they are entitled to do; there are all sorts for ways in which the climate could be poisoned to such an extent that one ends up with fewer people at work than one would have done absent the regulation—the benefits would not have been realised and the proportionality, the cost-benefit equation, changes. This amendment therefore proposes the kind of proportionality test that I hope the Minister would apply by rigorously looking at all the costs and benefits, and is then prepared to publish and defend that analysis rather than making simplistic assumptions. The amendment simply seeks to introduce that rigour with publication to make sure that it happens.
Other amendments in the group will add other forms of beneficial friction and I will leave it to their proponents to argue for them, but I hope that I have made a reasonable case for the Government to accept the additional clarity offered by Amendment 15. I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I speak in support of every amendment in this group, even at the risk of offending the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. At first blush, her Amendment 17 enhances my noble friends’ amendment and does no mischief to it whatever because. by including the impact of the legislation on service users in the list of other groups of people affected, she has, perhaps inadvertently, introduced an element of proportionality into the assessment of the legislation. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. I perhaps would not have chosen his friction metaphor because it is the legislation itself that is introducing friction into what ought to be partnership industrial relations. This group may not be Henry VIII on stilts, but it is Henry VIII revisited. What every amendment in the group at least purports to do is to introduce an element of transparency into the process before the Secretary of State inflicts these regulations on the public or on Parliament.
I want to be clear, as I have been in the past, that the Bill is not desirable or necessary but if such minimum service level agreements were in a particular instance desirable, necessary and proportionate to comply with convention rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly pointed out, it would be for a number of reasons better for everyone—including Ministers—to do this by way of purpose-specific primary legislation. In a moment where it was truly necessary to impose these agreements because they could not be reasonably negotiated, it would be better for legal advocacy to do this by way of purpose-specific primary legislation. Why? Because it would be purpose-specific and because any court subsequently considering the necessity, proportionality and compliance with the law of the measure would give greater deference to the scrutiny and process undertaken in both Houses of Parliament in the context of a Bill rather than regulations.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I say to the noble Baroness that, early in my career, I asked a senior trade unionist who had been the best Minister of Labour, and he said Walter Monckton followed by Iain Macleod.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
That is even more wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
That concludes what I wanted to say about this group of amendments, and I look forward to hearing later, I hope, a word of consensus from the Minister in response.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has tried to damn my amendment with faint praise, so I had better explain it and my approach to this group of amendments.
First, I remind the Committee that this is not draconian legislation, as the noble Baroness has just suggested. It does not impose minimum service levels; it merely allows the Government to specify minimum service levels, which can then be imposed via work notices if employers so choose. That is all this legislation is doing.
This group of amendments, in various ways, is trying to make the process of establishing regulations specifying minimum service levels more difficult, and to make them harder to get through Parliament by putting more hurdles in their way. The Bill already requires consultation; indeed, consultations have already been published for three instances of minimum service levels, and that process will run its course. The departments will then produce their minimum service levels and the appropriate statutory instruments, which will be accompanied by impact assessments. All of this is perfectly ordinary practice; it does not need any of the amendments in this group.
I tabled Amendment 17 simply because the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked in his Amendment 16 for an assessment of the impact on
“workforce numbers … individual workers … employers … trade unions … and … equalities.”
Just for the sake of balance, I wanted to remind the Committee that there is the other side: people who are affected by strike action and who want to receive services. The point of my amendment is to say: I do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, but if you are going require something such as this, it should not give just a one-sided picture; it should be balanced. To that extent, I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful for that gracious response from the noble Baroness. Whatever her motivation, I agree that service users should be included in that list, not least for the reasons set out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
One thing that the noble Baroness could read is the original impact assessment for the transport Bill, which said—and I will come back to this point—that there will be an impact on service users because disputes will be longer and industrial relations will be worse. The problem we have had is that that Bill and this Bill had impact assessments there were red-rated. The noble Baroness should focus on that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Indeed. The point is that the noble Baroness opposite and I disagree, perhaps, about what the effect will be on service users and others, but the test is necessity and proportionality, as was set out so well earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. Whatever the motivations, it is a good addition to the list, in my view.
As for the noble Baroness’s point that this is will all be voluntary and the legislation will not impose anything on anyone, that really does not hold as a matter of law—not least because, as we discussed earlier, the “may/must” point is really significant; it is not hypothetical. It is hugely significant that, when one is a given a power—whether the Secretary of State is given a power to make regulations or an employer is given a power to issue work notices—they must exercise that power rationally. They cannot ignore that they have that power; they will face litigation. That is compounded in this area because the employers may well be contracted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then have the purchasing power—the significant contractual power as the buyer of the service at one end—and would also wield regulations with the other hand. It is not completely ingenuous to suggest that this is all just helping the discussion and that there is no element of compulsion in it.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, much of the debate on this Bill has been concerned with its substantive content, but my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti draws attention to a major problem with the Bill; namely, its form.
I remind noble Lords that last year two committees of this House reiterated long-standing principles for drafting legislation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, in its report Democracy Denied?, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its report Government by Diktat, set out those principles, which were overwhelmingly endorsed in the debate in the House on 6 January last year. The fact is that this Bill flouts those principles. That view is reiterated by the reports on the Bill by the Delegated Powers Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Collins has just pointed out, the Regulatory Policy Committee has described the Bill’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. This raises the question of what steps this House could take to ensure that Bills comply with the principles that are essential for parliamentary democracy in this country.
I turn to my Amendment 36A in this group, which is my attempt to give some substance to—or to redress—the omission pointed out by the Delegated Powers Committee in its report on the Bill. I will read two short paragraphs from our report. Paragraph 19 says:
“The Government have chosen to put no detail in the Bill in relation to minimum service levels, leaving the matter entirely to regulations. Important matters of detail should be included on the face of the Bill, perhaps with a power to supplement those matters in regulations.”
That is my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s point. The conclusion, which the committee reached at paragraph 23, is:
“Given the absence of an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list in the Bill of the matters that can be included in regulations, the unconvincing reasons for this power in the Memorandum, and the absence of indicative draft regulations illustrating how the power might be exercised, the House may wish to press the Minister to provide an explanation of how the power to set minimum service levels in new section 234B(1) of the 1992 Act is likely to be exercised. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, we regard the power as inappropriate.”
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti says that we can make it good by passing primary legislation. I wonder whether the Government will consider the possibility—even at this stage—of introducing amendments to put those omissions into the Bill to give it at least some semblance of meeting the format and principles for the drafting of legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we should be indebted to my noble friend Lord Allan for introducing the concept of necessity and proportionality. It is a shame because, in an ideal world, the Minister would have stood up at Second Reading and set out at the outset the necessity and proportionality of the Bill. That did not happen, with due respect to the Minister, so we are having to have that debate now in Committee.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, that the Government’s preference is to negotiate, rather than compel these MSLs. I believe that she is sincere when she says that, but we must look at what has been happening with the disputes. We have had several real-world examples going on around us. To take the rail dispute, for example, it is absolutely clear that the Secretary of State, operating behind the scenes, prevented decisions being made that would have shortened that dispute. Had this legislation been in existence, how would the Secretary of State’s hand have been strengthened even further? Would we be any closer to a resolution now? I suggest that we would have been a lot further away.
When it comes to the health disputes, it took months before the Government got around the table with nurses and doctors to negotiate and do what was needed to end those disputes. It is not clear to me that the idea that “We would rather negotiate” is absolutely on the table. We know very well that “We would rather stand back” has actually been the Government’s approach. We have to take the Government on the evidence that we have seen, rather than what we have heard in your Lordships’ House.
I turn to the short, but excellent and pithy, debate that we have been having. With the fear of damning the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, yet further, I say that she is completely correct to focus us on the users of the services. However, I would say that the impact of days that make up a year of service disruption through strikes, regrettable though these are, is far smaller—thank goodness—than that of the day-to-day service that people experience. Perhaps the noble Baroness could focus her not inconsiderable energies on improving the day-to-day services that her Government are delivering for consumers across this country. That is the real world that most of them experience: the everyday service, not the strike day service. So perhaps she could use her energies in that direction—I am sure that everything would get better if she did.
I will say a few words about Amendment 40 in my name and a little bit about the friction that the Bill is creating within industrial relations or, indeed, in the case of my amendment, with recruitment. It is really a probing amendment to ascertain from the Minister whether he thinks that the Bill will impact the morale of existing workers and, more specifically, the ability to recruit new people. The existence of the Bill, whether or not it is used, will have a communicating effect both on the current and future employees of these services. The Government need to take that into consideration.
In an earlier group, noble Lords talked about the chronic shortage of people in many of the sectors that we are dealing with here—health, education and others. I realise that job security is not something that many Ministers experience—although the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is perhaps an exception to that, having been a Minister for many years—but I ask him to empathise on the subject of job security, and indeed task security. As I say, that may not be something that he has experienced widely. We have to remember that the employment market is a seller’s market; there is a shortage of people to go into these services. Therefore, it is absolutely not helpful if the Government make the prospect, or the sense, of working in these services less good and less favourable.
I am not necessarily suggesting that this legislation does that. I am asking the Government what work they have done to assess what effect this legislation would have on employee morale and future recruitment. Can the Minister set out the response and the nature of that work, statistically and qualitatively? If the work has not been done, why not?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am sorry to come into the debate quite late; I had not realised we were getting so close to the end. I support Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and Amendment 40 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I regret that I have been unable to be in my seat at earlier stages, but I am grateful that my right reverend friends the Bishops of London and St Edmundsbury and Ipswich have passed on my concerns. Amendments 20 and 40 are absolutely invaluable. If this Bill is—regrettably, in my view—to become law, it must have all necessary consultation and evidence gathering before it.
Amendment 20 would require that an assessment of health and safety performance in the affected sector is made prior to minimum service regulations, and that is critical. As other noble Lords have said, if we look at this past winter, it is valid to ask whether what might be considered a minimum service level is reached on a daily basis even when there is not a strike going on. Assessing the level of service provided in periods when the service is not affected by strike action, and requiring that to cover the most recent 12 months, creates an important benchmark.
Amendment 40 would introduce a necessary review of the impact on recruitment and retention of staff. Research by the TUC suggests that the recruitment and retention crisis is ongoing. Something like two-fifths of public servants say that the implications of this Bill have made them more likely to consider leaving their job in the next three years. We have a crisis of vacancies in many sectors. This is not going to help.
Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, asked a pertinent Question about the performance on the west coast rail line, and I was glad to be able to ask a supplementary to that. If nothing else, that exchange should have made clear to every one of us in this House that there is no point in setting minimum service levels for strike days when current performance is so depleted. Such poor provision of services, often exacerbated by the low morale consequent upon poor or aggressive management practices, means that acceptable minimum levels of service are just not available to customers or the public even on normal working days.
There is a duty on all of us who govern our nations to go beyond the most basic economic calculations when we are legislating to do so for the common good and human flourishing—something set out in the teaching of many religious denominations. This Bill, as drafted, fails that duty.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the amendments listed. I look to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and assure her that I will not, at this point, offer my support to her amendment; I am sure that will give her great comfort. I will not repeat the points I made at Second Reading, but I believe this Bill undermines basic democratic and fundamental rights. I believe it is dangerous. It is barely drafted and badly drafted. I thank my friend the executive dean of Leeds, Professor Johnson, for the advice he has given me on the Bill.
I equally thank the Equality and Human Rights Commission and will refer to its recommendations now. I hasten to add that the commission, in my opinion, has been much muffled and muted during the last 18 months. Let me quote:
“Having carefully considered the issues, we believe the Bill raises several human rights considerations, specifically in relation to Article 4 (Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour), Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly and Association) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that require careful scrutiny.”
I believe that these amendments provide for that.
To pick at random out of the commission’s substantial documents, paragraph 4 says:
“In the human rights memorandum that accompanied the earlier Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill”—
to which my noble friend Lord Collins referred earlier—
“now superseded by this Bill, the case for the lawfulness of similar provisions was made partly by distinguishing the Bill’s transport-focused clauses from measures affecting other sectors, including health and education. In that document, the Government recognised the importance of existing measures to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in health, education and fire and rescue services. For example, some healthcare sector trade unions already provide ‘life and limb’ cover during strikes, and the Secretary of State has legal powers to give directions to fire and rescue authorities, which could be used in the event of industrial action.”
Paragraph 5 says:
“It is not clear what consideration has been given to these existing measures in the current Bill. We advise that more detail may be needed to articulate a legitimate aim for imposing Minimum Service Levels (MSLs) on each sector impacted by the Bill.”
I now turn to paragraph 11, to which I referred at Second Reading:
“Finally, we are concerned that an employee would lose automatic unfair dismissal protection not only if they fail to comply with a work notice, but also if their trade union has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance: an employee will not know before participating in a strike whether that is the case or not.”
I could go on. For those reasons and many more, I urge noble Lords, if not now then when these amendments come back, to give their full support.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We have worked together, and one of the things I have always been impressed with, particularly on the Finance Committee we served on jointly, is her insistence on decisions being clearly evidence based. That is what this series of amendments is seeking, because at the moment the only evidence we have is an impact assessment that was judged to be red-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee—not fit for purpose. It was published after the MPs in the other place had scrutinised and passed the Bill, so they did not even have an opportunity to see the red-rated impact assessment.
The noble Baroness has raised the important point that industrial action affects the economy and all kinds of things, not just people travelling to work. It has a cost, and it has a cost for a purpose. When I studied industrial relations, many economists tried to make me better understand that strikes brought two sides together because they had costs imposed on them. The problem we face now is that some of the costs, particularly in the rail industry, are hidden. A rail employer does not suffer any cost from industrial action because the Government indemnify it for those costs, so there is no imperative on the employer to reach a settlement. I suspect that is why the public realise who is to blame for the length of these disputes. The public are not as easily fooled as the Government think they are.
Importantly, the impact assessment on the transport strikes Bill said it would have a
“negative impact on industrial relations, which could have detrimental impacts for all parties”
and increase the frequency of disputes, meaning that
“an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term”,
particularly on users of the service. Many noble Lords will have seen NHS Providers make the very same point in its briefings to this Committee, saying that it will directly impact good industrial relations and the ability to resolve any disagreements and disputes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his helpful advice. I will be sure to pass it on to the Prime Minister.
Lord Callanan (Con)
He was slightly less successful than the current one.
Each amendment in this group seeks to add additional evidence-gathering or reporting requirements or scrutiny to the regulation-making powers in the Schedule to the Bill. Before addressing them, perhaps the Committee will permit me a moment to reply to the rather general points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with him. Recent strike action has demonstrated the disproportionate impacts strikes can have on the public, presumably including his parishioners. They have been unable to access work and healthcare or attend education classes and are worrying whether an ambulance will be there when they need it. Businesses are also crucially affected by industrial action; 23% of them could not operate fully due to industrial action in the UK in December and 2.4 million strike days were lost between June and December. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate does not believe his parishioners need protecting from these actions, but this Government certainly do.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I have every concern for my parishioners and the members of the various parishes, schools and chaplaincies—everyone in my diocese, whether they are Anglican or otherwise. However, I do not believe that this legislation is taking us in the right direction or that passing it will create better ambulance, train or hospital services for the people in my diocese. We may disagree, but I assure the Minister that I speak on behalf of everyone in my diocese.
Lord Callanan (Con)
They will also get to vote in democratic elections and make their feelings clear. By the very nature of the legislation, if a strike is taking place with no minimum services, given that this Bill imposes minimum services, his parishioners will get a better level of service once it goes through. However, we should have debated these points at Second Reading. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate could not be present then.
Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay a Statement before each House outlining how the regulations that set minimum service levels and specify the relevant services are both necessary and proportionate. As my noble friend Lady Noakes, who has had to go to the Financial Services and Markets Bill in Grand Committee, pointed out, this amendment adds unnecessary duplication. Sufficient checks and balances before the regulations can be made are already built into the legislation. This includes the need to carry out consultations and the requirement that regulations must be approved by both Houses before they can be made.
Key stakeholders, including employers, employees, members of the public—perhaps even churches—trade unions and their members are all encouraged to participate in the consultations and have their say in the setting of these minimum service levels before they come into effect. Parliament, including Select Committees, as they already have done, will have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation. Following the consultation, the Government will consider all representations and publish a response setting out the factors taken into account in determining the minimum service level to be specified in those regulations.
Subsequent regulations on MSL will be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum which will outline the legal effect of the regulations, to address the complaints of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and its rationale and why they are necessary. Impact assessments will also be published alongside the regulations, which will then be subject to the affirmative procedure. We think this approach is appropriate; it is a common way for secondary legislation to be made.
Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, also requires the relevant Commons Select Committee to publish a report on how the Act will impact that sector before regulations are made. This will delay the implementation of minimum service levels—I suspect that is its intent—and extend the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public.
Amendment 36A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, would require the Government to lay draft regulations before each House of Parliament at least 28 days before the regulations are intended to be made, with an Explanatory Memorandum setting out factors taken into account in determining the MSL. These additional steps are, in our view, unnecessary and duplicative for the reasons that I have set out. The Government resist Amendments 16, 17, 20, 36 and 36A.
Amendments 38 and 39, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, would place limitations on the consultation provision, which the Government again resist. In the Government’s view, Amendment 39, as drafted, would not have the effect that noble Lords perhaps intended. In reality, it would require consultations to be published within a six-week window after the Act is passed, meaning that, by their very nature, future consultations after this period would then not be possible. Amendment 38 would prevent consultations taking place at all after the Bill has achieved Royal Assent. Both amendments would remove the ability to specify minimum service levels on an ongoing basis and, in our view, unduly limit our ability to respond appropriately as circumstances change—again, I suspect that this is the purpose of those who tabled the amendments. Key stakeholders are all encouraged to participate in the consultations to help shape the way MSLs operate. As I have made clear in previous responses, the Government have already published consultations on implementing minimum service levels in ambulance, fire and rescue, and rail services.
Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of a report in both Houses of Parliament, no later than six months after the Act is passed, setting out the findings of a review into the impact of the Act in regard to six key sectors. The noble Lord will be unsurprised to hear that I resist this amendment on the grounds that all the potential impacts of minimum service levels, including those on staffing, etc cetera, and the other factors the noble Lord mentions, will be considered as part of the process of making detailed regulations for those specified services. As I have set out on numerous occasions, these regulations will be accompanied by detailed impact assessments. We have also committed to conducting the usual review of the full impact of the Act within five years of the first secondary legislation coming into force. We believe that is a much more appropriate timescale to review the impacts.
I apologise to the Committee if I have spoken at length but there were a lot of amendments in this group. I hope I have been able to provide at least some reassurance on the consultation processes that we intend to undergo prior to making regulations, as is required by the Bill.
I was going to say that I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments, but I see that some noble Lords are seeking to intervene.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I want to ask a question of the Minister, just to be clear in my own mind. The trade unions say that the Government do not need these powers to enforce minimum service level agreements because they are reasonable and negotiate voluntarily and will continue to do so—they say it is not necessary to legislate. The Government disagree with that and legislate. Then, when some of us say that there needs to be a transparent process and proper consultation because this is such grave legislation for trade union rights, the Minister responds by saying, “No, no—we do it anyway, so we don’t need to put that on the face of the Bill”. Is there not a contradiction at the heart of this argument? The Government will legislate only one way: for powers for the Secretary of State but never for scrutiny of the Secretary of State. How is that consistent with what the Government say to unions, who are saying do not legislate for this because reasonable agreements will be negotiated in any event?
Lord Callanan (Con)
On a number of occasions, including the first day of Committee, I have made it clear that if voluntary arrangements are in place, which there are in some services, that is our preferred approach. However, it is the case in certain ambulance services that those voluntary arrangements were not agreed until literally the night before the strike action was due to take place, and indeed some trade unions then changed their minds about voluntary arrangements. We therefore think it is appropriate to have the back-up power. If they can be agreed, that is our preferred approach. The approach outlined by the noble Baroness is the normal process of consultation. If Parliament chooses to give the Government these powers—we will see the outcome of the debates in both Houses—then we will consider whether it is appropriate to make these regulations or not, given the circumstances in each case. Those regulations will then be further approved by Parliament.
Lord Fox (LD)
I have two points. In answering the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the Minister used the ambulance service as an example of the Government having to use the power. I understood that it was the employer that used the power, and in the case of ambulance workers the Government are not the employer. Can the Minister perhaps square that language?
In a rather less difficult answer, in dismissing one of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the Minister said that the process of publishing information at parliamentary level would take too much time. It is on the record that a recent former Transport Secretary of State said that the Bill will not solve the current problems. What is the Government’s time target for this, given we know that the Minister thinks one of the amendments would take too much time? What is sufficient time? When do the Government expect the Bill to be in place, all other things being equal, and what is the hurry?
Lord Callanan (Con)
On the noble Lord’s first question, as he well knows, it is the Government’s job—or duty, if we get the legislation through—to make the regulations, and then it will be at the discretion of employers whether they use the powers that are given to issue work notices. We have debated this many times.
With regard to the timetable, these things are beyond my authority level. It depends how quickly the Bill goes through Parliament, how many amendments there are, how long ping-pong takes, and the scheduling of the legislation by the usual channels. I hope we will get the legislation through as quickly as possible. Of course, I hope that we never need to use it, as I have said before, but we think it is appropriate that the power should be there as a backstop.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord a moment further, but could I invite him to express a view on the report of the Delegated Powers Committee? It points out that there is no detail in the Bill and criticises it for that. Does the noble Lord accept that criticism?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will be responding in due course to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee. I entirely accept that this is a wide secondary-legislation-making power for the Government, but we think that it is appropriate in these circumstances.
With that, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry the Minister did not feel comfortable accepting the amendments in this group, but I think it has been a helpful debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, both talked about the potential for inserting friction into industrial relations. These Benches very much agree that that may be the effect of these regulations, so we think it is right to insert a certain level of friction into the legislative process to try to head off what may be a very poor outcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who I understand is now in Grand Committee, talked about the measures as being “not draconian”, which is an interesting framing. However, the fact is that they impact on people’s fundamental rights. Whether it impacts one person, a thousand people or a hundred thousand people, the general principle is that one should be much more careful with any legislation that affects fundamental rights. My amendment was trying to make sure that we had a framework which reflected that.
There is an old maxim that if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this Bill, the Government are granting themselves the power to create a hammer which will be offered to employers, but employers may prefer to meet their staff with other tools, such as cash or commitments to a negotiated settlement. In this debate, concerns have come out once more about what happens when the only tool you offer employers is the hammer and the potential knock-on effects of that.
It is right that we are testing whether the Government really will use those powers only in extremis, because “can’t” is often used when “won’t” is closer to the truth, until “won’t” becomes “will” and “can’t” is miraculously turned into “can”—as we have just seen with the recent move to settle the health disputes. That is another example of the Government saying that something is impossible—like minimum service levels are impossible—and then it becomes possible. I hope the Government will strengthen the Bill before Report to make sure that “can’t” really means “can’t” when it comes to negotiated minimum service levels. With that hope, and not yet entirely jaded by experience, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am unable to call Amendment 17, as it is an amendment to Amendment 16.
Food Price Inflation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place:
“We recognise that food prices have gone up. The recent increase in food price inflation was driven by upward price movements in eight of the 11 food categories. The three most significant price increases since February 2022 are oils and fats, at 32.1%; milk, cheese and eggs, at 30.8%; and non-classified food products, at 28.9%. While recent unseasonable weather in Morocco has also created some temporary supply disruption to fruit and vegetables, domestic retailers have held prices comparatively low compared with the rest of Europe, where increased demand led in some cases to 300% rises in the price of some vegetables.
A number of media outlets have reported that the recent shortage of some salad and vegetables has been the driver of the increase in food inflation in February, but that is not the case. The overall inflation rate increases have been caused by several factors. There are other categories where price increases have been greater than that of vegetables over the past year.
These high overall inflation rates are driven by high utility prices and pressures on global supply chains that are being felt across Europe and beyond. Commentators expect the rate of inflation both across the economy and for food and drink to be near its peak. The Government have put in place a number of measures to support households with prices, including committing £37 billion to support households with the cost of living; £1 billion of that has already gone towards help with the cost of household essentials.
Looking forward to April, the Government will be uprating benefit rates and state pensions by 10.1%. The benefit cap levels will also be increasing by the same amount in order to increase the number of households that can benefit from those uprating decisions. In addition, for 2023-24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to £900 in cost of living payments. That will be split into three payments of around £300 each across the 2023-24 financial year. A separate £300 payment will be made to pensioner households on top of their winter fuel payments, and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefits will receive a £150 payment.
Free school meal eligibility is being permanently extended to children from all families with no recourse to public funds. The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half a century. We remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported.
We are also working closely with retailers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability of affordable food, so while we recognise that this is a challenging time for consumers, we are taking a large number of steps to support people with the cost of living and I have great faith in the food supply chain, which has proven itself to be extremely resilient over the past few years.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reading out the response from Farming Minister Mark Spencer, even if it does not fully reflect the struggles being faced by households across the country. Earlier this afternoon, the Bank of England raised interest rates for an 11th consecutive time, which of course will increase mortgage, credit and other costs at a time when many people are already scaling back on their food shops.
We understand that the Secretary of State cannot always be available to take a UQ, but her absence this morning was concerning. She is the department’s representative at the Cabinet table, and I think many people across the country would expect her to take an active interest in issues around food costs and security. Can the Minister therefore outline her involvement in this issue? What meetings has she had recently with producers and retailers, or have those meetings also been delegated to others?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State is deeply involved in this issue. The Food Minister, Mark Spencer, took this Urgent Question, which is right, as he is the Minister responsible for food supply, food security and other related issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that this matter affects a number of different departments right across government, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have also been deeply involved in this. I do not know precisely what meetings the Secretary of State has had on this issue, but I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness with details of discussions she has had. I can certainly say from my own experience that the Secretary of State is very involved in this issue.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Some £37 billion has gone to support households with the cost of living but there is no detail as to eligibility. Can the Minister say how this money is being distributed? I welcome the Government’s intention to permanently extend free school meals eligibility to children from all families with no recourse to public funds. Can the Minister say whether this means that free school meals will be available to all those who are eligible during the school holidays? As the Statement says, the price of milk, cheese and eggs has risen by 30.8%. Can the Minister say whether any of the £37 billion support is reaching the farmers who produce our milk, cheese and eggs?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On free school meals, the Government fully support the provision of nutritious food in schools to enable pupils to be well nourished, develop healthy eating habits and concentrate and learn in school. There is so much evidence from a number of different bodies about the importance of the right nutrition to assist with learning and ensure that the school day is as beneficial as possible. We have full confidence that schools and catering suppliers will continue to deliver a quality service. As the noble Baroness will know, under this Government, eligibility for free school meals has been extended several times, and to more groups of children than under any other Government over the past 50 years. This has included the introduction of universal infant free school meals and further education free school meals, as well as the permanent extension of eligibility to children from all families with no recourse to public funds—for example, people with temporary immigration status—which came into effect in April 2022.
We are doing much more to assist households, but she rightly asked where this money is going. It is going directly to those households that need it. Farmers and producers, who are at that end of the supply chain, are being assisted, supported and incentivised in a number of ways. She will have seen measures brought in in the Budget to help farmers through fiscal changes. We are securing and ring-fencing the £2.4 billion a year that we spend supporting farmers, but encouraging them to move towards a system of sustainable farming so that they are protecting our natural capital. This secures the food supply in the long term; it is not just dealing with a temporary problem that has emanated from the alarming effect of the war in Ukraine. Of course, we need to take further long-term measures to make sure that we are incentivising farmers to continue to produce food close to those who eat it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for their generous support, but what further measures beyond the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill are they planning to help science enable farmers to produce more in this country while at the same time improving the environment?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Technology is our friend in tackling the needs of future generations. As part of seeing how the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill would work, I went to a laboratory in Oxford and spoke to real experts in this field. I came away extremely optimistic that, through the changes we are bringing in through such Bills, but also the incredible work happening across institutions in the United Kingdom and abroad, our ability to feed ourselves in future is perfectly feasible. It needs will from government, investment and continued support for the scientific community, which is driving this change. Also, that scientific evidence needs to feed through to the farmers, producers and processors so that they can continue to produce food affordably and in a sustainable way. I can absolutely assure my noble friend that science is at the heart of government policy on this.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to hear the Minister talking so positively about school meals, so why are the Government still rejecting the calls from Henry Dimbleby and public health leaders to extend free school meals to all children in families on universal credit? When food prices are going up so much, we will have more hungry children than we have already.
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, we have extended free school meals to the largest group of children for decades, and we will continue to look at any other measures we can take. I draw her attention to the work that the Department of Health and Social Care has done for infants. It has increased Healthy Start food vouchers from £3.10 to £4.25, which is a significant increase, helping low-income families to buy basic food such as milk, fruit and vitamins, ensuring that families are not choosing between costs and healthy choices. There are many other areas where the Government can assist, such as advice on diet and nutrition that enables families to make the right choices for them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement expresses great faith in the food supply chain, which I can see only as an expression of extreme complacency. It also reflects that domestic suppliers—that is, supermarkets—have kept prices low. Has that not been the source of recent supply problems? The Government have been suggesting that we should be eating more turnips. Of course, the majority of turnips that we consume are produced outside the UK. Does the Minister agree that we cannot keep relying on the soil, water and labour of others to feed ourselves, particularly for the fruit and vegetables which we need far more of?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our food supply chain was tested as never before through the pandemic. The noble Baroness looks at me as if to say that that is not the case—it is the case. It was tested as never before and found to be secure. With one or two short-term exceptions, it kept us in this country able to have the food that we needed available to us. On costs of lines in supermarkets, Defra works with retailers on a weekly basis to see what direction they are taking to tackle the crisis in household incomes and to make sure that lower-priced products are available, and that those lines are continuing. We do not have a command and control economy that directs our retailers in what they can produce, but they have risen to the challenge, providing a great many lower-priced lines which will continue to be available for families such as this. I hope that will continue.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2023)
Lord Hendy
“(5) Regulations may not prohibit or enable the prohibition of participation in, or any activity in connection with, a strike or other industrial action; or create an offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that the regulations do not breach Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights by permitting the penalisation of individuals for exercising their right to strike.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to three of the amendments in this group; they bring into discussion matters of international legal obligation. Amendment 18A deals with protection against the excessive use of the regulations.
I ought to begin by reiterating something the noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned earlier, which is that we are dealing here with fundamental human rights. The right to strike is a fundamental human right. It has been held to be a right protected by Article 11 of the European convention in a series of cases, beginning with Unison v the United Kingdom. It is protected not only by Article 11 but by many other international treaties ratified by the UK. In fact, it is protected in many national constitutions; more than 80 protect the right to strike. Of course, it is not unlimited and there are always restrictions in one way or another, but its fundamental nature is that it is a human right.
So too is the right to bargain collectively, which was held by the European Court of Human Rights to be an essential element of Article 11 in the case Demir and Baykara v Turkey. The significance of that is that the right to strike is fundamental to the right to bargain collectively—in other words, to the protection of workers’ living standards. As was said 70 or so years ago, collective bargaining without the right to strike is effectively collective begging.
The right to strike has been lawful in the UK since at least the Trade Disputes Act 1906. There is no further justification, after the many Acts restricting that right since 1980, for yet further restrictions or limitations on the capacity of workers to defend their living standards. In particular, the European Court of Human Rights guarantees through Article 11 that strikers shall not be penalised for taking part in a strike. There are many cases to that effect, notably Danilenkov v Russia and Ognevenko V Russia.
The purpose of my Amendment 18A, given the breadth of the power to make regulations in this Bill, is to clarify that the Government will not use that power to impose an obligation not to exercise the right to strike or to penalise strikers specifically by creating a criminal offence. If that is what the Government intend or merely contemplate, the noble Lord will no doubt say so. If that is not what the Government intend, then Amendment 18A will cause no inconvenience.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hendy and to see the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in his place, because this group is about international law and a settlement that his grandfather had a great role in promoting, not just in this country or Europe but in the post-war world.
My noble friend Lord Hendy’s suite of amendments begins with his attempt to ensure that regulations would comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that the Minister will have no problem at all with that, because, in relation to this Bill—not some others in the current programme—the Government’s position is that the European convention is to be complied with. My noble friend’s Amendment 18A gets a little more specific in ensuring that Article 11 is complied with and people are not penalised for their trade union participation. It would give a more specific effect to what is clearly the Minister’s intention by giving a Section 19(1)(a) statement of compatibility under the Human Rights Act. I am grateful for that.
The Government’s current position and approach to international law is complex, if I can put it like that. Sometimes we are told that Bills definitely comply with this or that requirement of international law and sometimes we are told that the Government do not care about the ECHR and might even leave it if the Strasbourg court does not like us, and so on. In relation to this Bill, everything I have heard so far here, at Second Reading and in Committee, suggests that the Government want to comply not just with the European convention via our Human Rights Act but with international law more generally. I welcome that. However, the statement in the Bill, as required by Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, deals only with the European convention and, as we have heard from my noble friend—who is an expert; perhaps the leading expert there has ever been in labour law in this country—there are other equally important international agreements and conventions, not least the ILO, which is particularly important in this area of employees’ rights and trade union rights. If, as I suspect, the Minister is going to say that of course the Government want to comply with those conventions, he will have no problem at all with putting that commitment in the Bill.
Why should he agree to do this? Because it will mean that, assuming that this legislation passes, future Minister who have not actually taken the advice that he has, or made the promises he has made and the commitment in the Bill, will be bound, when they make regulations—which are easy to make by ministerial fiat—to the commitment that he has made in relation to human rights. It is also important to put these commitments in the Bill because it will make our courts the ultimate referees of whether future Ministers, when exercising these broad regulatory powers, are actually complying or not.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I first apologise for my non-attendance at Second Reading, having had a hospital appointment that I could not get out of, following my serious illness last year. Had I been there, I would have said that the Bill is vindictive, unnecessary and undemocratic, as well as unworkable and unsafe, and likely to be unlawful As it stands, it represents a grave threat to trade unionists, trade unions and trade unionism, and the fundamental right to collective action, as my noble friend Lord Hendy said.
Undermining the right to strike in the way the Bill does, and giving employers the power to compel striking workers to cross their own picket lines, would poison industrial relations across vast sectors of the economy. As my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Cashman said earlier, the point was made by the Government’s own impact assessment on the Bill’s predecessor, the aborted transport strikes Bill, which admitted that industrial action short of strike, such as overtime bans and work to rule, would rapidly increase as a result. I am sure that none of us would want to see that happen.
My noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Chakrabarti have made the main arguments for these amendments, but I would like to say a few words about the importance of keeping to our international obligations and our international standing. This is especially true as we were founding members of the International Labour Organization, a cornerstone of building a better world for working people. Many countries still look to the UK as an exemplar in human rights. It is also important that, in the light of Brexit, we are not seen to be on a race to the bottom, undermining workers’ rights in other countries, particularly as we have relationships and supply chains across Europe and beyond.
The Minister is well aware that, as part of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, we made commitments to maintaining our current standards of workers’ rights—the non-regression clause mentioned earlier—and commitments to fundamental rights at work that are grounded in the ILO core conventions, including ILO Convention No. 87, the Convention on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which the Bill clearly violates.
The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights also cast numerous doubts over the Bill’s compliance with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the difficulty for trade unions to foresee its consequences, its insufficient protection against arbitrary interference with Article 11 rights, and the Government’s failure to provide evidence establishing a “pressing social need” for most of these changes.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 32B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Collins, and to support my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendments too. Amendment 32B is all about ensuring that regulations made as a result of the Bill’s provisions do not conflict with protections in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. There is a real concern about this; we have already heard several times that the impact assessment received a red rating from the RPC. Looking at that impact assessment, there is a question about whether the Bill would have an impact on trade and investment, and the answer given by the Government is no. That concerns many of us, as we know that the EU-UK TCA is our most important trade agreement with our closest trading partner.
I declare my interests in that, when the TCA was being negotiated, I was the general secretary of the TUC and a member of the steering committee of the European TUC. We had some very simple priorities on jobs, protecting workers’ rights and protecting the Good Friday agreement, so we were very keen to secure what we called a level-playing-field clause in that trading agreement to ensure that workers’ rights, conditions and jobs could not be undercut. That was really important to us; we worked really hard on it in the four years it took to secure the agreement. I met Monsieur Barnier a number of times, as well as David Frost—now the noble Lord, Lord Frost—and parliamentarians from the EU and the UK. Together, we campaigned for that clause to prevent unfair competition on the back of lowering labour standards. That was not an academic concern; there were real concerns that, in some quarters, the Brexit dividend was discussed as being one that would involve worsening workers’ rights, especially in respect of the working time directive, which put safe limits on working hours, paid holidays, rest breaks and equal treatment for agency and temporary workers.
At that time, we were also very conscious that several members of the Cabinet were co-authors of that now-infamous pamphlet Britannia Unchained, which specifically described opportunities to worsen workers’ rights. That level-playing-field clause is vital: it provides for non-regression and for no weakening of what are described by the ILO as “fundamental rights at work”, including
“health and safety standards … fair working conditions … information and consultation rights”
and protections for the “restructuring of undertakings”. If the UK breaks that commitment, it would have an impact on trade and investment.
The EU can impose temporary remedies, including trade sanctions. Of course—I hope the Minister is aware—the ETUC, of which the TUC remains a member, can raise a complaint directly with the European Commission. That is why the recent European Commission report saying that it was monitoring very closely developments in respect of fundamental workers’ rights, including the right to withdraw labour, should be taken so seriously. It is not covered in the impact assessment, as I have said, but I think that the Minister at one point said—correct me if I am wrong—that he would consider looking at whether that impact assessment needed to be revised. If he is willing to consider that, this is a key area that is vital for trade, investment and jobs, and it would be worth looking at it again. I very much hope that he will consider this amendment in that light.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I fully expect the Minister to stand up and tell us that none of these amendments, which have been put so well by noble Lords, is necessary. I expect him to say that there is no possibility of the Bill, once it becomes an Act, breaking or impairing our relationship with the international organisations that noble Lords have mentioned. I wonder how he will be able to say that, given the nature of the Bill.
We come back to its skeletal nature and the answer which nobody seems to know to the question “What is a minimum service level?” Until we know, we do not know whether the Bill breaks any agreements that we have with organisations in this country or around the world. I refer your Lordships to our previous debate in Committee, in which we discussed correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in which he represented the issues around the fire and rescue services. I remind noble Lords that, after I prompted him on why the consultation had raised the issue of the Grenfell Tower fire and the Manchester Arena bombing, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—said that one thing the consultation sought to probe was that the minimum service level would include the ability to cope with issues on that scale. He did not disagree with me when I came back and said that that implied that 100% of the fire and rescue services in an area would need to have been named in the work order under a minimum service level. In effect, that would ban striking.
In the event of such a minimum service level, that calls into question our relationships with the ILO, the EU under the TCA and others, because it is a de facto ban on striking. It may or may not upset those relationships, but I want the Minister to be able to say what minimum service level is being modelled when he tells us that we do not need to worry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I sometimes wonder when I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whether I need to bother replying to these debates, because he has written my speeches before I get up. For the benefit of the House, I will go through this anyway.
Amendments 18A, 18B, 32B and 36C all relate to the UK’s international obligations. Before I deal with the amendments in detail, it is worth reiterating, as I have previously and as we debated last time round with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the Government firmly believe that the Bill is compatible with our convention rights and complies with all international conventions that the UK is signed up to. I signed a statement to that effect.
Amendment 18A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, looks to ensure that the Bill does not prevent people from taking strike action and cannot be used to create an offence. I oppose this amendment because its effect would be to prevent any minimum service levels from being implemented at all. He will understand my reservations, given how the Bill is drafted in respect of the operation of work notices and where an employee would lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal for industrial action if they participated in a strike while being named on a work notice. To be clear, our Bill does not prohibit strikes or other industrial action, but it does enable employers to continue to deliver a minimum service level to their users and stakeholders during and notwithstanding that action.
The Bill is about balancing the ability to strike with the rights and freedoms of others. Preventing minimum service levels being implemented does not strike a balance; it would merely maintain the current disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public—although I expect that that is a cause of legitimate disagreement between us.
Amendment 18B would ensure that the regulations did not compromise our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement. However, given the reiteration I made earlier, we believe that this amendment is duplicative and unnecessary. The Government remain committed to our international obligation and respect the process of the respective governing bodies in providing any rulings that are required concerning compliance. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has a desire for relevant international conventions and treaties, and their associated governing bodies, to have a greater role in respect to minimum service levels in Great Britain. But my argument here is that incorporating decisions by supervisory committees into domestic primary legislation, as this amendment seeks to do, goes way too far.
Amendment 32B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, seeks similarly to prevent minimum service regulations being made where they could be said to be within scope of the trade and co-operation agreement and other international obligations. As I stated at the outset, the Government firmly believe that we are entitled to bring forward this legislation—many other European countries already have similar legislation—which I remain satisfied is compatible with all the international conventions the UK is signed up to. The noble Baroness will, of course, be aware that there are existing mechanisms for monitoring adherence to the trade and co-operation agreement—if indeed there are concerns from EU member states or the European Commission, although I do not believe there will be.
In any case, I am surprised if anybody thinks that ensuring that the public are able to access some level of service in key sectors, including emergency services, during strike action goes to the heart of the TCA, not least because many EU member states already have minimum service level arrangements in place. Indeed, in some of the services we have mentioned, some member states ban strike action completely in those areas. As drafted—and perhaps not intentionally—this amendment would prevent minimum service levels regulations being made at all, which, given that is the purpose of the Bill, we clearly cannot accept.
Finally, on Amendment 36C from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to respond to the points the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, made, as I have stated previously, the Government firmly believe that the Bill is compliant with convention rights and international conventions. The Bill also enables regulations to be made in a way that is compliant with the convention rights, and on making those regulations, Secretaries of State will need to carefully consider the relevant articles of the ECHR, alongside international conventions, if they choose to suggest minimum service regulations to Parliament. So they will also have to make similar statements.
I highlight that this amendment seeks to restrict minimum service levels so that they can be made only where they are necessary to provide protection for the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. While the protection of life and health are indeed important aims of minimum service levels in areas such as healthcare—
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister—it took me a while to find this on my system. He referred to minimum service levels being common in other European countries. I submitted a Written Question on this, to which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, replied:
“The Government does not believe that direct comparisons with other European countries are particularly helpful because of the different administrative and legal frameworks governing industrial action.”
The Minister will also be aware that the overwhelming majority of the other countries in Europe that are cited provide for negotiated minimum service levels, not state diktat.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I did not say that they were particularly common, just that they exist in some European member states. Of course, provisions, agreements, labour relations, laws, relations with trade unions, et cetera, are different in other member states. The example I cited last time was border service provisions; many member states prohibit, in effect, strikes by border service personnel because those services are delivered by police, army or military services. The arrangements are different in other member states, but that goes to my point that we are entitled to do what we believe appropriate for the United Kingdom. However, similar provisions—albeit in different circumstances—exist in other member states of the European Union and other democracies worldwide. Noble Lords will remember from the previous Committee day the reasons we have given for believing that the six sectors in the Bill are correct.
The amendment would incorporate into domestic law decisions of supervisory committees of the ILO. These committees’ conclusions and recommendations are non-binding; they are intended only to guide the actions of national authorities. The only body with explicit competence to interpret ILO conventions is the International Court of Justice. I highlight to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, that the ILO supervisory committee has stated that minimum service levels can be made in services
“which are not essential … but where the extent and duration of a strike might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population … and … in public services of fundamental importance.”
We do not believe that we are in contravention of our ILO duties. The amendment does not provide for minimum service levels in those circumstances, and I am therefore puzzled as to why the noble Lord did not include them in it, given that they were referenced previously in Committee and today.
I hope that, with these reassurances, I have been able to persuade noble Lords to withdraw and not move their amendments in this group.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have two quick questions about the Minister’s answer to my noble friend Lord Hendy. First, I think I understood from his answer that he thinks that Amendment 18A would drive a coach and horses through minimum service level agreements. This may be an argument about “prohibit” or “prohibition”, because my understanding of the Bill as drafted is that, where a minimum service level agreement is imposed by regulations, that will remove some of the existing protections in trade union law. The Minister clearly wants that to be the case, but surely he is not suggesting that, for example, regulations should be able to impose criminal or civil penalties on workers. If that is not his intention, could something like Amendment 18A not be welcomed to make sure that regulations could not create that level of penalisation in the Bill? If regulations cannot criminalise workers, it is important that that is on the face of the regulation-making power.
Secondly, on the ILO as opposed to the ECHR, I think I heard the Minister say that the only body competent to determine compliance with the ILO is the International Court of Justice. That is hardly taking back control, and it is completely inconsistent with this Government’s permanent position on the Strasbourg court and the ECHR. What would be wrong with a domestic court having the ability to scrutinise whether or not regulations made by a future Secretary of State comply with the ILO conventions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will deal with the noble Baroness’s two questions. First, the reason I opposed Amendment 18A from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is that we believe it would effectively kill the Bill—indeed, this may be the noble Lord’s intention. This is because where a person is named on a work notice, they are effectively prohibited from striking for the day that they are identified to work; they would lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal for industrial action if they did participate in the strike. This means that regulations for minimum service levels could not be made within the current drafting of the Bill. They would enable the prohibition of participation in a strike, and therefore the minimum service level could not be implemented—thus killing the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, would be very happy if that were the case, but noble Lords will also understand that that is why the Government oppose the amendment.
Supervisory committees of the ILO are not entitled to interfere in UK law. There are conventions that we are signed up to, but the only way to interpret the decisions of the ILO is through the provisions of the ICJ. I am not a legal expert, but I can get legal clarification that it is possible for the ECHR to take into account the rulings of the ILO when adjudicating the relevant provisions in the ECHR.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Please forgive me; I do not mean to be difficult, but these are very important points and I do not think I made myself clear in the way I put the questions to the Minister. I will try just one more time.
I do understand that the Minister intends that once minimum service level agreements have been imposed by regulation, employees who breach work notices will lose their protection from dismissal. I understand that as the ultimate sanction against them in the Bill. But my understanding of Amendment 18A is that it is also trying to deal with things such as regulations being used to create new criminal offences or new civil penalties—things that are not just removing protection from dismissal. Is the Minister prepared to say, in Committee, that this is not the intention behind the regulation-making power? Accordingly, will he consider amendments at a later stage to that effect?
I was not suggesting that it is about the Strasbourg court adjudicating on the ILO. I was suggesting that in our domestic public law, our courts are normally capable of second-guessing the legality of regulations. If that is to be the case, will our courts be able to determine whether regulations comply with the ILO?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to give the noble Baroness the commitment she seeks. There is no intention to create any criminal offence within this Bill; it does not do that, and it is absolutely not our intention.
On her follow-up question, the provisions in the TCA relevant to minimum service levels include commitment to ILO conventions, non-regression and rebalancing. Enforcement mechanisms vary, depending on the particular provisions. For the non-regression clauses, enforcement mechanisms include consultation and escalation, involving panels of experts and potential rebalancing measures, all of which would take place at an international level and cannot bring any claims in the domestic courts. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance she is looking for.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his answer, and to all noble Baronesses and Lords who participated in the debate. I will not do them the disservice of attempting to summarise their speeches.
Let me deal with two points arising from what the Minister has said. First, he asked whether my intention is to kill the Bill. It would certainly be my desire, but that is not the effect of these amendments, for sure. He says Amendment 18A and the other amendments would prevent minimum service levels being set. That is simply wrong, as a matter of law. There is nothing to prohibit the minimum service levels being set. What the amendments propose is that the minimum service levels be set in such a way that, first, they cannot penalise workers for going on strike—individual workers who are requisitioned to provide service under a work notice should not be penalised, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights—and, secondly, they comply with the standards of the ILO and the European Social Charter.
That brings me to my second point, which is the importance of the ILO. I say this with the greatest respect, but I am not sure the Minister has quite understood the position of the ILO in the hierarchy of international law so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Before I explain that, I will make one thing clear: the Minister read a passage from one of the supervisory bodies of the ILO—it was in fact the committee of experts—and suggested that I had not quoted it. I read that very passage on to the record earlier this afternoon; I think Homer might have nodded briefly and missed that. The Minister said that the decisions of the ILO are not binding. In one sense, of course, that is true. Britain was the first country in the world to ratify Convention 87, which is the most ratified of all the conventions of the ILO. It is an international treaty and we are bound by it, but I agree that it is not binding in domestic law.
Secondly, ILO conventions and their jurisprudence are taken into account by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting the various articles of the European convention, particularly Article 11. If you want to know what Article 11 has to say about the right to strike, it is no good looking at the text of that article. What you have to look at are the decisions of the European court. Every one of them refers to the jurisprudence of the ILO and the European Social Charter in defining what permissible restrictions there may be on the right to strike.
The third reason the ILO is so crucial is because of the trade and co-operation agreement. This is the point I was endeavouring to communicate to the Minister, but I think I failed to do so. I read a few words from Article 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement, but let me read a sentence. Article 399(2) says that
“each Party commits to respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions”.
So we are bound by the fundamental ILO conventions. Article 399(5) makes specific reference to implementing the provisions of the ILO conventions ratified by the UK and the provisions of the European Social Charter ratified by the UK.
It is not a question of the ILO interfering in the domestic jurisdiction of British courts or the British Parliament. We have chosen to be bound by the provisions of the ILO—a choice that we repeated in 2021 when we ratified the TCA. The fact of the matter is that we do not comply with the requirements of the ILO in relation to minimum service levels, particularly—I mentioned this earlier, but the Minister did not deal with it—because the ILO requires that minimum service levels are set with the intervention or input of the social parties, particularly the trade unions, and that there should be a specified mechanism for resolving any disagreements. That is not what the Bill provides, so we may well be in breach. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Fox
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that work notices are only issued where all options to avert a strike are exhausted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is a slight change of gear from where we just were. This is a probing amendment, and it uses the idea that work notices can be used only after all other avenues have been exhausted. It returns a little to the thought experiment I was trying to have, which is the applying of the Bill, or the Bill if enacted, to what we have witnessed in the Government’s management or mismanagement of the public sector strikes that we have just been going through.
No matter what the strike and no matter which the sector, disputes are settled only when there is negotiation. The Government seem to have taken a long time to understand this with the disputes that we have just come through. The rail strike has been going on since June, and the nurses’ strike started in the autumn, but only in the last few weeks have these strikes begun to end, thanks to negotiation. Why did it take so long? Why were so many operations delayed? Why were so many people’s lives, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, disrupted by service delays in, for example, the train services?
Strikes are an extreme action for all workforces—workforces do not willingly go in for them—and that is certainly true in the health service. We have to remember that in the 106-year history of the Royal College of Nursing, this is, as far as I know, the first time that nurses have balloted and decided to strike. This is in a sense a very hard decision for those employees. I wish to probe the Minister in that context. Had these measures been available—had a minimum service level for the health service or the train services been in place—when and how would they have been deployed? Indeed, would they have been used differently in the two different services, one being essentially an emergency service and the other a transport service?
There has been no clarity on how these minimum service levels could and will be used. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and I think the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, himself, have said that they would be a matter of last resort. However, negotiating is in fact the last resort that brings people to the table and ends strikes. Where does the minimum service level fit in the pantheon of industrial relations here? That is what this amendment seeks to probe.
What we saw with the strikes that have been going on is that the decision to negotiate can only have been a political decision. The launch of the Bill was associated with that political decision and designed to shift the blame or the balance of blame to other sources. The only reason we saw movement is because in the end the Government decided that they had to negotiate with the health unions and started to gradually lift the blockers that they had been using on the train employers in order to move things forward. This is the evidence of how we see the Government operate. They are the ones who brought forward this measure, so how does this measure fit into that sort of behaviour? I beg to move.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, it is worth reminding ourselves why it is necessary to scrutinise this Bill in such detail. The RPC’s latest Independent Verification Body Report confirms that, since 2021, there has been an alarming increase in the number of impact assessments that have been red rated—not fit for purpose—and, of course, this Bill is one of them. There were no red ratings between 2016 and 2021; since 2021, there have been eight.
Turning to the amendments, which I am very pleased to support, one of the other fundamental flaws of the Bill is that it takes a provocative, one-sided position on industrial relations. Its partisan approach fundamentally offends people’s sense of fair play. The public are all too aware how real-terms cuts in pay and underfunding of public services have led to a crisis in staffing levels and service backlogs. Strikes are merely a symptom of worker discontent and, as all the polls show, that discontent is often supported and shared by service users.
As many noble Lords have observed, workers never take the decision to vote for strike action lightly and unions always want a negotiated settlement, but sometimes it seems that the only way some employers understand the true value of labour is when that labour is withdrawn. The task of government should be to help prevent disputes, or at least to help resolve them when they happen, not to throw fuel on the fire, but this Bill is based on the premise that strikes are the fault of workers and unions, as if they were never caused by the failure of employers to listen, compromise or negotiate, by years of government underfunding and cuts, or by the frustration that arises when the Government take so long to put more money on the table when, had they acted earlier, the dispute could have been settled months before without any need for a strike.
The Bill imposes yet more draconian requirements on unions, but no commensurate obligations on employers or government. Ultimately, it gives the Secretary of State the whip hand to weaken workers’ bargaining power and attempt to render a strike meaningless.
The partisan stance of the Bill is a fundamental flaw, but the naming of individual workers in work notices is the provision that many find most shocking. Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to require that work notices list the names of individual workers who will be required to work, rather than just numbers—as I am aware that a number of employers have suggested? In response to a Written Question I asked, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said that the Bill provides:
“enforcement mechanisms to maximise the assurance that Minimum Service Levels (MSLs) will be achieved on strike days”—
in other words, naming of individual workers is necessary in order that they can be threatened with the sack.
How will the Secretary of State ascertain whether that list of individual names has been chosen without bias, discrimination or a vindictive attempt to target trade union activists? What will be the process and additional Civil Service resources needed to do that effectively? I genuinely do not know. Can the Secretary of State add or remove individual names, should a legitimate complaint be made? In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, when minimum service legislation for transport only was first planned, the Government pledged to ensure that
“sanctions are not directed at individual workers.”
What changed?
At Second Reading, the Minister asserted:
“This legislation is not about sacking workers”—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1563.]
but of course it is precisely about sacking workers. The legislation expressly provides for the power that workers—nurses, firefighters or teachers—who disobey a notice to work during a strike for minimum service levels, perhaps unilaterally imposed by an employer and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, can be sacked. Crossing fingers and hoping that it will never happen is no comfort to those workers whose jobs are on the line. Key workers who kept Britain running during the pandemic and who were lauded as heroes now look set to become martyrs. Why is that, when emergency cover, where genuinely needed, is already arranged through mature agreement rather than diktat?
It has been so difficult to secure answers to many of the questions raised in this Committee, but nevertheless I will repeat another one. If a named worker calls in sick on the strike day that they have been notified to work, can they be sacked too—yes or no?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Amendment 21 seems to be just common sense. Surely it is appropriate that if a work notice is to be issued, it is issued only when all the options to avert a strike have been exhausted. As we keep hearing today, work notices bring serious consequences with them. As the Bill stands, it could lead to an individual employee losing their job. Beyond that, if trade unions do not take “reasonable steps” to comply with the work notices, they could face significant financial damages and the strike could be classified as illegal. If that happens, all the workers taking part in that strike risk losing their livelihoods.
Therefore, it is not clear what these “reasonable steps” are. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is not clear either, saying that
“the provision requiring trade unions to take ‘reasonable steps’ may fall foul of the requirements of Article 11”.
What assurances can the Minister give us that whole swathes of workers will not lose their livelihoods through this? Work notices should never be used lightly, especially in their current form. Amendment 21 provides some safeguards to ensure that this does not happen.
We can see from recent weeks and months, as other noble Lords have said, that trade unions want dialogue. They want to discuss matters of concern. They want to find mutually agreed solutions, which are the only solutions that actually work in practice. But if the Government adopt a more heavy-handed approach to strike action in those sectors where they have what elsewhere might be called coercive control, or if employees feel pressed to do so under fear of civil action, as we have heard today, this risks further division and delays agreement. If we allow work notices to be issued when other avenues to settle a dispute have not been fully explored, perhaps for political reasons of the day, that will, in my view and in the view of many others, extend and escalate disruption.
In its present form, the Bill will not reduce the short-term destruction caused by strikes; rather, it will lead to longer and more damaging strikes. That is not in what the Minister referred to earlier today as my parishioners’ best interests. It is not in anybody’s best interests.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Allan referred earlier, in relation to Amendment 15, to the key issue of human rights. The amendments in this group look at other aspects of this concept. Amendment 23 in my name seeks to examine the practicalities of an employer specifying a minimum service level. Other speakers have referred to the problems associated with this. It is going to be an invidious process. Let us look at how this will work.
The Secretary of State grandly specifies a minimum service level, then washes his or her hands of the practicalities and the personnel implications of it, because employers will have the job of implementing it. The Government will say that it is voluntary, as the Minister said earlier today, but at the same time, she made it clear that employers will be under some level of pressure from the Government to implement minimum service levels. This simple Amendment 23 makes it clear that employers need to specify only the number of employees in each role rather than by name in their work notice.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I will now reply to the debate on Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which have been grouped. These seek to limit how and when a work notice can be issued by an employer.
Amendment 21 seeks to place an additional and, in our view, burdensome requirement on employers in relation to issuing a work notice. Amendment 23 seeks to alter, fairly fundamentally, how a work notice operates. Both amendments would create unnecessary uncertainty for employers, unions and workers around their respective obligations for work notices.
Amendment 21 requires the employer to exhaust all options to prevent a strike before they issue a work notice. However, it is my submission that employers are already incentivised to avoid strike action due to the substantial cost and disruption that it causes them. If a trade union has given notice of a strike under Section 234A of the 1992 Act, which must happen before any work notice can be given, it seems reasonable for the employer to assume that the options to avoid a strike have, in fact, already been exhausted for the purposes of producing a work notice.
It is also not clear what the test would be for an employer to show that all the options had been exhausted to prevent a strike, creating significant uncertainty for employers and trade unions. The Bill does not prevent employers and unions continuing to negotiate to reach a settlement on the broader trade dispute and, we would hope, for the strikes to be called off. However, we know that negotiations can be complex and can cause uncertainty, so all parties, especially the public, need the fundamental reassurance that the minimum service will operate on a particular strike day. Therefore, the Government resist this amendment.
Amendment 23 seeks to alter how work notices are to operate by specifying that the work notice must identify only the number of persons required to work during a strike rather than actually naming them. There are a number of problems with this approach. First, trade unions are required under the legislation to take reasonable steps to ensure that members identified in the work notice comply with that notice. For that to be true, the trade union would need to see the work notice and to know which union members have been identified as required to work in order for it to take those reasonable steps to ensure that those members attend work rather than going on strike. Secondly, this amendment could lead to confusion between employers and workers about who exactly is required to work, particularly in instances where a large number of individuals are employed to deliver essentially the same duty—for instance, call handlers. There would no longer be workers
“identified in a work notice”
for the purposes of paragraph 8(3) in Part 2 of the Schedule. Consequently, the provision removing the automatic protection from unfair dismissal would presumably also not apply, and therefore cannot be accepted.
I reassure noble Lords that individuals named on a work notice will be notified of this as regards themselves only. They will not be issued with the work notice itself, and the work notice will not be a public document. Unions will be bound by data protection law in the usual way, and there will be no sanctions or consequences for individuals if the minimum service level is not then achieved.
Identifying individuals to work in advance of the strike day helps to provide clarity for workers, unions and employers about who exactly is required to work and the arrangements for that particular working day, as well as strike. Without this we believe it will cause confusion and would potentially lead to minimum service levels not being achieved, continuing the disproportionate impact strikes can have on the public, as well as potentially costly and unnecessary litigation between unions and employers.
Finally, let me pick up on the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.
Lord Monks (Lab)
Would the Minister accept that there is tremendous scope for victimisation in the provision that he is talking about, which this probing amendment is opening out? If the work notice is imposed on union officials—convenors, shop stewards, secretaries or whatever—they are in an extremely vulnerable position. They may have been doing the negotiation. They may have been regarded by the employer as awkward. All of a sudden they are put in the frame to say that you are coming into work, regardless of the role they may have played in the origins of the dispute. Is this not a victimisation permit for employers to use in all kinds of circumstances?
I worked in a place where the senior steward had been sacked and was victimised, and it is quite a common occurrence—other colleagues here will perhaps know more about that than me. It seems that the Government are giving a blank check to employers to take on individuals who are prominent in the union, and putting them in an impossible position of being summoned in by the employer at the same time as they may well have been leading the workers in the particular dispute that is taking place. What would the Minister say about that idea that he is giving a charter for victimisation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s concerns but I do not believe he is justified in his worries. The Bill is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when issuing a work notice. If an employee feels that they have been unfairly targeted then they can raise a grievance with their employer or ultimately take legal action to challenge whether the work notice complied with the law. That would then be a matter for the courts to decide.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I have listened with great care to what I think has been an analytical destruction of the very heart of this Bill. If, as the noble Lord has already enunciated, the right to take action for unfair dismissal is automatically removed by this Bill, how on earth can an individual take a grievance?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not understand the point the noble Lord is making.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I used to teach industrial relations a long time ago—I may be rusty. The purpose of unfair dismissal protection is that the employer cannot arbitrarily take away the right of a person to their employment unless they have good cause. If they have declined, and have taken a grievance following the notice they have been given, and unfair dismissal protection has been withdrawn, how can that grievance procedure be proposed and implemented?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They lose their protection only if they do not comply with a work notice. The whole principle of this—as the noble Lord has studied industrial relations, he will understand—is that, for a strike to be lawful, effectively you are breaking the contract you have with your employer. If the strike is lawfully called, you are entitled for the purpose of industrial action to break that contract. This merely reinstates that contract between you and your employer. If a work notice is issued and you do not comply with it, it would be treated as an unauthorised absence. There is no intention to say that that will result in dismissal. I would have thought that that would be very much a last course. As I said at Second Reading, we do not believe it will result in people being dismissed. We believe people will comply with the regulations and the law, and that the Bill will have the effect that we intended.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am sorry but I did not quite understand the Minister. I can see that dismissal for refusing to comply with a work notice might be a matter of last resort for the employer, but we are dealing here with the potential for bad employers to take the opportunity to sack somebody, and they might sack somebody without notice. If they do that, there is no possibility at all of the worker taking up a grievance. I do understand what other legal avenues there might be for such a worker—I can visualise none.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was responding to the point I was asked about, and I made the point that, under the Bill, it is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when issuing the work notice. I was outlining procedures that they could then follow if that was the case. Ultimately, they could challenge it in court, and that would be a matter for the courts.
I was going to go back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, but I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, wants to intervene.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
In order to reassure me on the issue of names becoming public, the Minister said that names would not be made public and—I assume this is what he meant—would remain private between the employer and the employee. I just want to tease out how this will actually work. Apart from the fact that the person concerned would turn up at work on that day and so it would no longer be private, how would trade unions and other workers be able to challenge any of this legally? How would they challenge the overall balance of the decision-making of the employer and the fairness in the way in which all this has been carried out, particularly if someone were to end up losing their job as a result of the whole process? How would there be any legal assurance about this if the whole thing is cloaked in mystery?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me outline the procedure for the benefit of the noble Baroness. The work notice will not be a public document. The Bill makes it clear that current data protection legislation applies, while allowing the employer to provide the work notice to a trade union so that the Bill can be effective. Under the Bill, trade unions are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are identified in the work notice comply with that work notice. The trade union therefore of course needs to see the work notice and to know which union members may be named, in order to enable it to take those reasonable steps. Unions will otherwise be bound by data protection law in the usual way. Additionally, while those named on a work notice will be notified about that regarding themselves only, they will not be issued the work notice itself. Naming individuals to work in advance of the strike day helps to provide clarity to the workers, to unions and to employers regarding arrangements for that working day as well as the strike.
If the Committee will now permit me to move on and answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, that may provide some clarity on the Government’s thinking in this respect. The first question the noble Baroness asked was whether Secretaries of State have a say in who is identified in a work notice. Fundamentally, the work notice is a matter for the employer, so there is no way that Secretaries of State can influence who is identified on a work notice.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked whether a worker would be in breach of a work notice if they were sick on the relevant strike day. Workers should of course be supported if they are unwell and cannot work, and it remains the case that if a worker is too unwell to work, they are not obliged to work under a work notice. I hope that provides the clarity the Committee is seeking on this point, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this debate has revealed—or rather, not revealed—more than I expected. I am grateful to the Minister for imaginatively making things up as he goes along, which is what this seems to be. We have a Bill in which none of the details is included, and we are relying on the Minister to flesh out from the Dispatch Box how the Bill will work. [Interruption.] I am not talking about what the Bill is, but how it will work.
At least two misapprehensions are driving that interpretation of how the Bill will work—not what it says in law, but what it will do. The first is that the nature of the service sectors the Bill has identified is such that they are politicised. The Minister’s description of the interplay between employer and employee is an unrestrained free-market description, but we know—and this is why I was talking in the last group about using the current dispute as a model—that this is not a pure-play employee/employer relationship. There are three parties in this dispute, and the third party is the Government. By experience, behind the scenes and sometimes in front of the scenes, the Government have been part of the process of progression of these disputes, and in the end, they have been the arbiter of whether or not they were settled. So the Minister’s description of the nature of the dispute in which these minimum service levels and work orders would be used is an inaccurate model for us to consider.
The Minister speaks of the unions and the workforce as if they are two separate entities. We have to understand what the Minister thinks a union is. In large part, the union is the workforce, so keeping the work order secret from the workers by giving it to the union is an interesting concept.
The second misapprehension is that the Minister is expecting the union to oversee the work order, which is a list of names. We know from the Bill, because it specifically says so, that the names on that list could and should be either union members or non-union members. How does the union deal with the non-union members? Is it fair for the non-union members to have their names on the union’s list? These are the sort of practical details we do not have to hand because we do not have a description of work orders and minimum service levels. That is the problem the Minister is having to deal with and is working very hard to do so.
I will look very hard at Hansard because I find it very difficult to understand how the Minister sees the unions and the workforce operating independently in a workplace. Leaving that to one side, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21.
Member’s explanatory statement
Restricts the giving of work notices to trade unions which are recognised (either by an employer or statutorily).
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, in scrutinising this Bill there is always a risk that we miss the wood for the trees. The core concern remains that this Bill allows the Executive to take sweeping powers, avoiding proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, and to do so at the cost of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The trade union movement is by far the biggest democratic membership organisation in this country. Millions of people join unions because the evidence is that membership is the best way to win better pay and conditions. Millions more recognise that by tackling exploitation and discrimination, and by upholding safety standards and providing, for example, second-chance learning opportunities to hundreds of thousands of workers every year, British trade unions perform a great public service.
The Minister often talks about balance, but the balance of power is already rigged in favour of employers and against working people. A key measure of that is that, at best, average wages have stagnated for well over a decade and workers’ share of the total wealth they produce has been shrinking.
Ministers claim that they are acting in the best interests of service users, but the majority of service users do not agree. For example, according to a poll for “Politics Home”, junior doctors are backed by a ratio of nearly 2:1. The bottom line is that service users trust public servants more than they trust Ministers. As IFS director Paul Johnson said in the wake of the Budget:
“You can’t keep cutting the pay of teachers, nurses and civil servants, both in real terms and relative to the private sector, without consequences for recruitment, retention, service delivery, morale and - as we have seen … strikes.”
Strikes are always the last resort. However, as has been vividly illustrated over the last few weeks, it is only because of that right to strike that the Government and employers have come back to the bargaining table and improved pay offers to rail workers, firefighters, health staff and, hopefully soon, teachers and others too.
The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Collins probe the Government’s appetite for taking sensible steps to prevent work notices being used to stop meaningful strike action, and to avoid victimisation, protect health and safety and protect equality rights. Without a prior requirement for an equality impact assessment, as set out in Amendment 30, there is nothing to help prevent direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and other personal characteristics. This, of course, is not an optional extra. The Government have a duty under the Equality Act and under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits discrimination. We already know that this Bill will have a disproportionate impact on women—for example, nurses and cleaners—and on black and ethnic minority workers, who are significantly overrepresented in health and transport. The TUC and others have argued that by reducing union bargaining power, this Bill will be a huge step backward for tackling racism at work.
On a number of occasions, the Minister has been asked about protection against victimisation for elected workplace union reps, but I do not believe that it has been addressed adequately so far. Amendment 27 provides that opportunity. On all sides of this Committee, many of us are appalled that an employer and, ultimately, the Secretary of State propose to name individuals to work during a strike and to sack them if they refuse to obey. I anticipate that the Minister may suggest—indeed, he has suggested—that workers and reps who are victimised could make a claim to an employment tribunal, but that is cold comfort when your livelihood is stripped away. I remind the House that the NHS is not the only service suffering backlogs: the average waiting time for a first hearing at an employment tribunal is now 335 days for a single claim, or 55 weeks for multiple claims.
On Amendment 22, during day 1 of Committee, I asked the Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, whether, in principle, Amazon could be included within the scope of “health services”, alongside other private companies, for the purpose of the Bill. I still have not had time to read the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, with the attention it deserves, but the noble Lord certainly confirmed on the day that, yes, Amazon could be included in principle. I raise that for a couple of reasons. First, Amazon is a powerful multinational corporation that is notorious worldwide for its anti-trade union activities and oppressive treatment of workers. As I mentioned, Amazon warehouse workers in Coventry are now being paid £11 an hour—it is interesting that Amazon has raised this, in the wake of the first strikes that they have ever taken in this country.
Noble Lords will be aware of a GMB investigation using freedom of information requests that shows that one pressure on our ambulance services is the surge in call-outs to Amazon warehouses in the run-up to black Friday, a time of year when Amazon workers are under huge pressure to achieve targets. It is an inhumane pace of work that poses a danger to health and increases the likelihood of accidents—hence the spike in call-outs.
My other reason for raising the Amazon case is that those workers are of course on strike for union recognition, which they do not have yet. They want an agreement to collectively bargain with the employer on vital matters like pay, rest breaks, health and safety, but so far, shamefully, Amazon is refusing to recognise the union. In principle, if Amazon could be included in minimum service levels, as we were told, it could just draw up a work notice to force those workers to break their own strike. It would not even have to go through the pretence of consulting with the union, because it refuses to recognise one. In fact, any bad employer covered by the Bill could see this as an incentive to derecognise unions, and all with the blessing of this Government. What happens if the workers refuse to obey? They face the sack. If the union is deemed not to have taken these undefined “reasonable steps” to force them to work, it would be hit by legal action and all striking workers could be sacked. So Amendment 22 seeks to prevent the Bill becoming a licence for bad employers who refuse to recognise, or who want to break, trade unions.
Finally, regarding Amendments 24 on reasonable steps for employers, and Amendment 31 on assessments of health and safety, and consultation with trained and expert workplace health and safety union reps, the key concern has been the apparent lack of government understanding about the realities of running services in the six sectors and how to do so safely. For example, noble Lords will be aware, which is something of an irony, that the PR around the Bill claims it is about safety, when one of the key issues driving rail disputes has been the axing of safety maintenance jobs and safe staffing levels on platforms. Of course, the risk of dangerous overcrowding on platforms is something that would be made only worse by the Bill.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, but the contribution by my noble friend Lady O’Grady is a heck of an act to follow. I should like to talk specifically on Amendments 25 to 28, which deal with the serious issue of targeting specific workers, especially, I say to the Minister, trade union activists. On reflection, I could have raised this in the debate on Amendment 21, but it is appropriate to do it here.
These amendments in the name of my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady O’Grady contain the issue of work notices and the potential for bad bosses to target, humiliate and victimise trade union activists—as has been raised by my noble friends Lord Monks, Lord Hendy and Lord Blunkett. Unfortunately, history is full of examples where bad bosses, given the opportunity, victimise workers in struggle. I say this seriously. I am talking about bad bosses. I have met many good bosses in my lifetime.
Let us go back 30 years, when the major players in the construction industry blacklisted hundreds of activists, humiliating them by depriving them of making a living and denying that they were ever doing so—and there are many other examples that I could give. In the Bill, we have notices issued to break a strike. Is the Minister really telling me that the bosses will not target activists, shop stewards, branch officials, conveners and even health and safety reps? Let nobody say that this will not happen; it will, and there is absolutely no protection in the Bill for trade union activists.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that an employer cannot use union membership as the basis for choosing which workers are compelled to break their strikes—although there seem to be no sanctions whatever if they choose to ignore this—but there is nothing to stop them choosing union activists, and experience tells us that they will. Strike leaders will obviously be at the top of the bosses’ hit lists, but nobody is safe from being forced to make the agonising choice between betraying your trade union principles of solidarity and standing together as workers, or potentially losing your job.
Let us take health and safety nominated reps. They do a great job for workplaces but, as my experience tells me, they can be somewhat pedantic, both to companies and, on occasions, to trade unions. They are not even protected and are therefore open to discrimination if they are told to cross a picket line that other workers have voted for. Their independence will be compromised, and this will not help companies or businesses going forward.
The disgraceful thing in the Bill is that it gives employers the right to list trade union members who have already jumped through hoops to vote for a strike and will now be forced to betray their colleagues and their own principles. If they do not, they can also be fired. Surely that is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain. The Joint Committee on Human Rights certainly thinks so: in its hard-hitting report, it suggests an amendment very similar to Amendment 27. The amendments here go further and offer broader and vital protection for trade union activists in particular, and I urge Members to support them.
I conclude with a very simple question for the Minister: is this legislation intended to be used by bosses to target, humiliate and even victimise strike leaders and other trade union activists? If not, why is there nothing in the Bill preventing this from happening? We need to know, and we need to know now.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments; I will make no attempt to emulate the speeches from either the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, or the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who have great experience in the union movement.
In the Bill, there is a specific requirement for the unions “to take reasonable steps” to implement work orders. On these Benches, there is still no understanding of what “reasonable steps” actually means and what legal jeopardy unions would be in if they did, or did not do, particular activities. However, I characterise this collection of amendments as causing the employers to take reasonable steps not to victimise members of the union as a result of this legislation. Therefore, it adds a mirror to the reasonable steps that the unions have to observe, so that the employers should similarly observe the same steps—and I support the spirit in which the amendments have been delivered.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, mentioned private sector deliverers. Having read the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, my reading is that he rules providers such as Amazon out of the remit of this legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether my interpretation is correct. I credit the noble Lord, Lord Markham, with coming to your Lordships’ House and participating in Committee. We had no such benefit of a Transport Minister, and we still do not know the position of private sector suppliers of services in the transport industry. While we seem to have an explicit ruling out of private sector deliverers in the health service, we have no such ruling out in the transport sector. Will the Minister, in responding to or confirming my interpretation of the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, also tell us whether the similar and other deliverers of private sector services, which are crucial to the railway industry, will be included in the remit of the Bill, or, as in the health service, not included?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate: the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Hendy, Lord Woodley and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.
Amendments 22 and 24 to 31 all relate to placing additional requirements on the process of issuing our famous work notice. It is the view of the Government that the current requirements in the Bill strike the right balance between the views and perspectives of employers and unions to enable a reasonable and fair work notice to be issued. The Bill explicitly requires that employers must consult a relevant trade union, and have regard to their views, before issuing a work notice. Additionally, work notices must not include more persons than are reasonably necessary to meet the minimum service level and employers, as I said earlier, must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a trade union when producing that work notice.
I respond, first, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who waxed lyrical about Amazon warehouses. While it is possible for a private business to be in the scope of minimum service level regulations, if they provide a relevant service as specified within the regulations, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that the Government have no plans or intentions to apply minimum service levels to Amazon.
Amendment 22 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, would limit the issuing of work notices to recognised trade unions only. However, it is of course possible that strikes can be called by recognised and unrecognised trade unions, which can lead to disproportionate impacts on the public. It is therefore our view that MSLs must be able to be applied where a union, recognised or not, provides a strike notice to an employer.
I move on to Amendments 24 to 31 from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. Amendment 24 looks to ensure that employers cannot name more persons than necessary to secure the minimum level of service. However, it is already recognised that employers should not roster more people than are needed to achieve a minimum service level, so that some workers can continue to take strike action if they wish to—that is the whole principle of the Bill. That is why the Bill already requires employers not to identify more persons than are reasonably necessary. This enables the employer some limited flexibility in providing for contingency to respond on the day to any operational incidents, sickness or other types of absence. In our view, the existing approach strikes the right balance and provides sufficient safeguards for workers. To go further would limit or eliminate an employer’s flexibility, which could then mean that minimum service levels—the whole point of the legislation—would not be achieved.
Amendments 25 and 26 both look to ensure that each individual is able to go on strike for at least part of the period of the strike, notwithstanding any work notice. The Government resist these amendments for three reasons. First, the number of days on a strike notice could be substantial across both short and long periods for which the union has a mandate to strike. It is therefore reasonable that some workers may need to work more than 50% of those strike days, especially if their colleagues are off sick, on leave or attending training. Secondly, these amendments would cap the minimum service level and reduce the influence of the consultation, and those who respond to it, in the setting of the minimum service level. Thirdly, Amendment 26 appears to prevent any work notice being given where there is only one day given on a strike notice, which therefore creates a loophole which could be exploited—that may have been the purpose of the amendment.
Amendments 27 and 28 look to require the employer to ignore a person’s trade union activities or use of trade union services in deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice. However, we believe the Bill already sufficiently protects against any discrimination regarding a worker’s union status when employers are preparing their work notices. The trade union activity or services that a union member may have been involved in are connected to whether they are a union member, which, as we have already said, the employer must not have regard to.
Additionally, existing legislation—Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—already provides a remedy for workers who are discriminated against on union grounds, and that section will continue to be applicable here. Therefore, we believe the amendment is duplicative in nature.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Woodley raised the issue of a health and safety rep, who does not necessarily have to be a union rep or even a union member but may well be victimised because of their activity in protecting workers. Will the Minister ensure that is explicitly addressed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not accept the word “victimised”. A work notice effectively says that somebody has to fulfil their whole working contract as normal, whereby they come into work and get paid for it. That is not victimisation in any conventional sense of the word.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
The Minister raises Section 146 of the 1992 Act, which protects against detriment on union grounds, as he rightly says. But “union grounds” means either union membership or union activity, and Section 151 is the same protection against dismissal on grounds of union membership or union activity. Can the Minister explain why only union membership is protected in this Bill and not union activity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is because, as we already said, Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act already provides a remedy for workers who are discriminated against on union grounds. That section will remain applicable here, as I said earlier.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I apologise for intervening again. The point is that Sections 146 and 151 specify membership and activities, whereas this Bill protects against discrimination on the grounds of union membership alone. If the same protection against union activity is required in Sections 146 and 151, it should be required here as well. The obvious implication, if you were arguing a case in court, is that that protection is not given under this Bill, otherwise it would have been included.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will seek further legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the provision already exists in other applicable legislation, there is no need to duplicate that provision in another statute. I will certainly check that with the lawyers for the noble Lord.
Amendment 29 seeks to require the employers to be satisfied that the work notice does not identify more people than reasonably necessary before giving a work notice. However, as we set out in new Section 234C(5), the employer is already required to not identify more persons in the work notice than are reasonably necessary for the purposes of providing MSLs.
Amendment 30, meanwhile, seeks to require the employer to assess the equality implications of the work notice. Again, in our view, this is not necessary. The Bill does nothing to reduce the existing obligations of employers under the Equality Act 2010. As I said, there is an existing legal provision that continues to apply. There is no need to restate it.
Finally, Amendment 31 seeks to require the employer to assess the health and safety implications of the work notice and consult health and safety representatives. The Government’s view is that the current requirements in the Bill strike the right balance between the views and perspectives of employers and unions to enable a reasonable and fair work notice to be issued. As I have said, the Bill explicitly requires that employers must consult the relevant trade union and have regard to its views before issuing a work notice.
Adding any further steps or requirements to this process will result in disproportionate and costly burdens for employers and could result in delays to the issuing of a work notice by the employer and therefore delays to minimum service levels being applied. I fully accept that this may well be the purpose of the amendment, but I hope the Opposition understand why the Government cannot accept it. Additionally, when drawing up work notices, employers must still adhere to the relevant requirements set out in existing health and safety law. That is unchanged by this legislation.
For these reasons, the Government resist these amendments.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I thank the Minister—I think—for that response. Many of us raising legitimate concerns about this Bill are quite disturbed that the argument for naming individuals seems to be that you have to name individual workers so that they can be threatened with the sack and that it is necessary to share those names with employers so that they can be required to take reasonable steps or face significant sanctions, including seeing the entire workforce stripped of protection against unfair dismissal.
The whole basis of this Bill seems to be born of a “command and control” school of management where you order people to work rather than seek agreement, which I think most modern management is about. That is why it is particularly frustrating for those of us who are critics of the Bill, because we know that where minimum service levels are genuinely needed for safety issues and made by agreement, whether or not those agreements have been made at the last minute—so be it; that is often the case—they are much more likely to work effectively than anything proposed in this Bill.
I could make a number of points. I thank the Minister for his point about Amazon, but I feel I have now heard very confusing messages across this Dispatch Box from him and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, so I will want to come back and clarify that.
At some point I would like an opportunity to explain more clearly the real concerns in the trade union movement about victimisation and derecognition. They are not being brought up to put obstacles in the way of this Bill. They are born of real-life experience, both of trade union officers representing shop stewards, convenors and reps who have been victimised and of many of our families who have been through this. The penalty of victimisation is so high—to have your livelihood removed is massive. I would like to pursue this area in other ways if possible, because I am sure we can convince the Minister of the sincerity of that concern and the need for genuine protection.
It is confusing why there are specific references to not selecting people on the basis of trade union membership but not extending that to those who hold trade union office and lay leadership positions.
I could go on, but I will leave the Minister with one last question. I have yet to meet a reasonable employer who wants this Bill. I have had plenty queueing up to tell me that it is wrong, immoral or maybe just unworkable and will make matters worse from a pragmatic perspective. Can the Minister tell us of a single employer or group of employers batting for this Bill? I have yet to meet one. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Fox
“(9A) Failure to comply with a work notice may not—(a) be regarded as a breach of the contract of employment of any person identified in the work notice, or(b) constitute grounds for dismissal or any other detrimental action.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would protect employees from detrimental action for not complying with a work notice.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may feel a sense of déjà vu in this group, but the point is to turn the focus to the individual worker named on the work order. This is not about the union or the company; it is to amplify the effect that this Bill can have on the individual. That is why I am happy to present Amendment 32 and to support the other two amendments in the group.
Amendment 32 would protect employees from the detrimental action of not complying with a work order. The point here is to amplify that, at the moment, failure to comply with a work notice could be regarded as a breach of contract. This amendment seeks to remove that possibility. Why? Because we are looking at a list that is prepared by an employer, with no sense of what criteria that employer is using to deliver the list. The employer assesses the number of people, and indeed the names of those people, who are required to produce a minimum service level that a Minister has decided with very little recourse to Parliament. It is the individual who is at the end of that chain, over which they have no control or power whatever. That is the point I seek to emphasise here. It is the individual at the end who will carry the can for this Bill, if it becomes an Act.
I have proposed this amendment because I want to emphasise very clearly that, although the Minister says the Bill is not about wanting to sack people, it can, and because it can, it will be used in the future to sack people for not complying with work orders—work orders produced in a process over which employees have essentially no power or ability to appeal whatever. It is an absolute infringement of their freedom. That is why I propose this amendment. Under the Bill, the employee could be sacked for taking strike action that has been agreed by a democratic ballot, it having gone through all the hoops that the Government require such ballots to observe. Because the employer has decided to put them on a list, the employee cannot do that.
From everything that has come from the Dispatch Box so far, I think it will be hard for the Minister to understand this. However, it is something my colleagues on these Benches and I have discussed a lot, and which we find to be a really important element of the Bill. It is about the relationships between unions and their employers, and between the employers and the Government, but in the end, it is about a fundamental individual right, and this Bill removes that right. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. My Amendment 32A simply amplifies the noble Lord’s amendment and takes it a little further.
As I understand it, and the Minister will correct me if I have misunderstood the Bill, the consequence of being requisitioned and then refusing to work during a strike is that there will be no protection from unfair dismissal. As many other Members of the Committee have already said, if that is the case, bad employers—of which there are some—will use that as an excuse to be rid of people who they regard as trouble-makers, whether or not they are union activists.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of London has added her name, and the other amendments in this group. My right reverend friend regrets that she is unable to be in her place today. In fact, given that she is at this very moment leading a debate among fellow bishops on the subject of sexuality, I think she would much rather be here in your Lordships’ House alongside me. Therefore, in supporting these amendments, I wish to include a number of points which she would undoubtedly have made had she been here.
As we have heard earlier today, including from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, proportionality is a central principle of law. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to draw attention from these Benches to an important biblical perspective on that topic. I suggest we should respect the limitations set by Moses over 3,000 years ago in the Hebrew scriptures. When Moses laid down a simple rule,
“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”,
he was not advocating mutilation as the proper means of punishment. He was making the crucial point that the punishment must never exceed the gravity of the offence.
Dismissal for failing to comply with an instruction to work on a strike day is, in my view, the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and, I suspect, the view of many others, grossly out of all proportion. I also wonder how enforceable it would be. Were I a worker issued with such an instruction, the stress I would suffer in consequence could quite likely render me unfit to turn up to work on the day—and, as I trust your Lordships have begun to recognise, I am a fairly tough nut. Will the Minister therefore agree to explore, before we reach Report, whether some lesser maximum penalty would be more appropriate?
Moreover, as the Royal College of Nursing has said, sacking workers for failing to accede to such an instruction to work
“would exacerbate severe nursing workforce shortages”
that we already face. Nursing vacancies are already high—is it more than 43,000? That is a 10% increase over the last 12 months. There are similar shortages elsewhere in the public sector.
The first day in Committee highlighted major unresolved questions about the application of the Bill. The breadth of the roles under the titles of “health services” and “transport services” is huge. Providing minimum service levels that are of the same urgency, and providing for penalties of the same severity, for those who drive blue-light emergency vehicles and the driver of my local 98 bus is absurd.
The amendments in this group would continue protection of employees’ rights and would protect our workforces from further exacerbation of already severe shortages. I urge the Minister to accept them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. We have already discussed at length the proportionality concerns about the minimum service level agreements being imposed per se, but now we get into the sanctions and consequences for trade unions in what will follow, but also for individuals. We must now talk not just about the vital human rights principle of proportionality that we discussed before but about the vital principle of non-discrimination.
This gives me the opportunity to reflect on an earlier exchange between the Minister and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway. There was a dissonance about this concept of victimisation. As I understand it, the Minister was saying, “For goodness’ sake. It’s not victimisation to say that there needs to be a minimum service level agreement to protect the public, and therefore there have to be work notices”. However, what perhaps the Minister did not hear or understand is that when you give employers the power to pick and choose between individual employees, we are opening up the Pandora’s box of abuse of power. When we legislate in your Lordships’ House, we have to guard against potential abuses of power.
If employers, scrupulous or otherwise, are allowed to pick and choose between individuals, some people will never be on the list but other people will be, and sometimes the people will be selected for that list on grounds that include their race, sex, sexuality and possibly even their role within trade union activity. I think that is the point my noble friend was trying to make to the Minister, and this is the power that is being handed to individual employers, in contrast with years of struggle for protection against discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of trade union activity as well as membership.
If, as I fear, the Minister will not pause the Bill or introduce greater parliamentary protection before the powers can be triggered in the first place, please will he look at the powers given to individual employers over groups and particular employees in the workplace, because it is invidious and, I think, very dangerous?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, are finding yet another way to try to deprive the Bill of any effect. In their own ways, they are trying to make it entirely voluntary to take part in the provision of minimum service levels, if requested by an employer. That runs completely counter to the policy intent of the Bill.
If noble Lords think that the Bill needs to be modified in some way to reflect their concerns, it is incumbent on them to produce amendments which find a practical way through that. To simply, in effect, make compliance with a minimum service level work notice voluntary is unacceptable in the context of the Bill. Although I understand the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, makes, those issues are already covered by discrimination law. The concern she has about being selected on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation or race is already covered by discrimination law and does not need to be protected again in the Bill.
Lord Fox (LD)
Does the noble Baroness accept that in Committee, there are two sorts of amendments: there are amendments which are very practical and designed to be used as a template for changing the Bill, and there are probing amendments? I point out that I made it very clear that the latest two groups I was speaking to were probing amendments. On that basis, I think her criticism is invalid.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for engaging so specifically and constructively in the debate, but I do not think she appreciates just how difficult it is, even under the present law, for people to go to a tribunal, with or without the assistance of lawyers or their trade unions, to demonstrate that they were picked on for one of these reasons. Now, in this Bill, a specific protection against unfair dismissal is being removed. An employer will say, “No, no, X, Y or Z was picked for this other reason. They are essential to the service”. It just happens to be the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is essential to the service every time and not, for example, my noble friend Lord Hendy, who of course is the expert. If I am always essential to the service and he is not, it will be very difficult for me to demonstrate that it was discriminatory, when the whole purpose of the Bill is, as the noble Baroness said, to remove protection from unfair dismissal.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The purpose of the Bill is not to remove protection for unfair dismissal; the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that minimum service levels can be guaranteed for those who rely on the services, and we are trying to find practical ways through that. I was inviting noble Lords to find ways did not simply rip the heart out of the Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I just say to the noble Baroness that there is nothing wrong with conformity being voluntary. The whole basis of the ILO jurisprudence is that minimum service levels and requisitioning should be agreed voluntarily between the unions and the employers. In most of the countries of Europe where they have minimum service levels, volunteers are sought to provide the minimum service. That is also true in this country. We have been hearing for days about the local agreements that are reached in all the six sectors identified here.
That is done on a voluntary basis, and the people who do the work volunteer to do it. They speak to their union, and the union says, “Somebody has to do it; you’re going to do it”, and they say “Okay, fine if that is the price of having the industrial action and bringing pressure to bear to maintain our standard of living, that is the price I am prepared to pay”.
There is nothing wrong with voluntariness. It does not detract from the rest of the machinery of the Bill in setting minimum service levels and issuing work notices, if that is really what the Bill is intended to do.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41 in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Collins and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and support the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy.
Many of us agree that one of the most disturbing features of the Bill is that it hands employers powers to name individual workers in a work notice and potentially force them to work against their will, through a strike, without their individual consent or the agreement of their union—or face the sack. Many employers in the public and private sectors have told us very clearly that they do not want this authoritarian power because it would sour industrial relations. If the Bill is enacted, they fear that they would come under undue political pressure to exercise that power. The publication of WhatsApp messages, as I mentioned previously, between the then Health and Education Ministers revealed that at the very same time as they were publicly praising, clapping and thanking key workers for their efforts during the pandemic, privately they were describing those same workers and their unions—unions are made up of workers—with contempt.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has often sought to reassure us by saying that he hopes the powers will never be used and that there would be no undue pressure. However, I am sure that he would agree—I might even get a smile out of him—that if Gavin Williamson was Education Minister today, on the evidence of those WhatsApp messages, he would be straining at the leash to ensure that academy schools pulled that trigger. That is the fear.
The Government have continually cited France, Italy and Spain as countries that also provide minimum service levels. However, unlike in the UK, in each of these countries the right to strike is a constitutional right. Perhaps the noble Lord can also confirm which of these countries, if any, have provided a blanket power to remove protection against dismissal for individually named striking workers? I submitted a Written Question on this subject, but the response I received did not answer the Question. What is more, it took 15 days rather than the expected 10 not to answer my Question. In fact, the answer, as we have heard, is zero. None of those countries does that.
Can the Minister also explain and justify a gaping hole in the consultations issued on the Bill so far? Those consultations failed to ask whether respondents agree with the Government that it is acceptable to sack individual firefighters, ambulance staff and rail workers if, for example, for reasons of conscience they do not comply with the work notice. Could it possibly be that this is not in the consultation because Ministers know that they will not get the answer that they want? Most fair-minded people find the idea of such sackings abhorrent. The sacking of individually named workers who refuse to comply would be catastrophic for workers’ rights, staff morale and industrial relations in this country. I remind the Minister that NHS job vacancies currently stand at over 133,000 and that 17% of newly qualified teachers leave within two years.
Not so long ago, following a public outcry about what happened at P&O, Government Ministers condemned its scandalous behaviour, and rightly so. Ministers said then—I quote from the 24 January government press release—that unscrupulous employers
“must not use threats of dismissal to pressurise employees into accepting new terms”.
But the Bill provides powers to do exactly that: to pressurise key workers into accepting terms under threat of the sack. These key workers’ heroic work through the pandemic has earned the public’s respect and gratitude. One firefighter was moved to write a letter about his experiences. He says that he has been proud to work for the service for 15 years, including being deployed to Nepal following the devastating earthquakes in 2015; that he and his colleagues have a can-do attitude and have provided emergency cover voluntarily when needed through industrial action; and that they entered the service because they want to help people. He warns against this legislation and says that it is unnecessary, given that arrangements for emergency cover are already in place, and says that Ministers
“can’t simply legislate away the depth of anger and frustration we feel about how we’ve been treated. The Bill could lead to individual workers like me being sacked for taking part in legal and democratically decided industrial action over issues which are genuinely of concern to society in general.”
Taking the power to sack workers whose names are chosen unilaterally by employers, as sanctioned by Ministers, is understandably perceived as deeply provocative. If this firefighter refused to comply with the work notice, does the Minister really imagine that his colleagues would stand by and let him be sacked? Some argue that the Bill is intended to be provocative but, if so, that would be foolish. The provision to sack workers flies in the face of all industrial relations common sense and any sense of human decency.
I know that we are covering the same ground, but it is not just named individuals who could be vulnerable to the sack, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights made clear in its report:
“We find it hard to see how it is compliant with Article 11 ECHR to expose any participant in industrial action to the risk of dismissal simply because a trade union fails to take unspecified ‘reasonable steps’ required in respect of those subject to a work notice.”
I will not go on, but I look forward to the Minister's response—or, better still, an indication that this Government will remove that right to sack striking workers from the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. At the risk of provoking further interventions, I will start by replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I do not know the legal definition of victimisation, but her understanding of it is clearly different from mine. I would define it as something like “subjecting an individual to degrading, unfair treatment”. In effect, a work notice says to an employee, “You fulfil your contract, as has been previously agreed, as normal. You come into work, do your normal contracted job and get paid for it.” In any definition that I understand, that is not victimisation. Obviously she has an alternative view, but I do not believe that it would come under the definition.
I will directly address the point by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I have said it before and will say it again: this legislation is not about sacking key workers. Let me be very clear about that. She inquired about the outline of the Bill: it is about protecting the lives and livelihoods of the public by enabling minimum service levels to be applied on a strike day. If people comply with the legislation, then there is no question of anybody being sacked on the basis of it.
This group of amendments seeks to ensure that no detrimental action could be taken by an employer against persons who are named on, but then fail to comply with, a work notice. There would be no consequences for participating in a strike despite being named on a work notice. The whole intention of these amendments is not to achieve a balance between the ability to strike and the rights and freedoms of the rest of us to go about our normal daily business—to get an ambulance, to attend the health service or to have a firefighter come to put out a fire in my property. This is about ensuring that strike action can continue with no consequence whatever and with no regard as to whether a minimum service level will be achieved. That fundamentally cannot be accepted by the Government.
For a minimum service level to be achieved, it strikes me as obvious that enough people need to attend work and therefore workers need to be appropriately incentivised to do that. The legislation achieves this by removing the automatic protection from unfair dismissal where employees participate in strike action despite being named on a work notice. While it is at the discretion of employers rather than the Government as to what, if any, action is then taken against employees in those circumstances, we think it vital that the Bill equips employers to manage instances of non-compliance, just as they would in any other case of unauthorised absence, to enable them to achieve that minimum service level. As my noble friend Lady Noakes observed, employees retain all their existing protections against discrimination—a very good point that further reinforces why these amendments are not required.
Overall, we believe that the approach in this legislation is fair and reasonable and ensures that there is the balance, which we have talked about so often, between the ability to strike and the rights and freedoms of everyone else to go about their daily business and use essential public services. Removing the ability for there to be any consequences whatever for failing to comply with a work notice would likely lead to strikes being more disruptive, as we have seen, when compared with the level of service that employers would be able to provide by applying a minimum service level that allows for these consequences.
Finally, there is a point of detail. Amendments 32 and 32A, if implemented, would cause a significant legal conflict with Part 2 of the Schedule, which makes amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to make clear that there is no automatic protection from unfair dismissal for an employee who is identified in a valid work notice but participates in the strike contrary to that work notice.
In conclusion, I resist these amendments on the grounds that they seek to sustain or increase the disproportionate impact that strikes in these key areas can have on the public as a continuation of the status quo, a continuation of the public being disproportionately impacted by strikes and a continuation of lives and livelihoods being put at risk by those strikes. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
With each group of amendments that passes, I get the impression that the area of carpet between me and the Minister is getting larger. The differences are getting larger rather than smaller, which is disappointing because sometimes in Committee they can be narrowed, but I do not get that sense. In describing the change in a person’s contract so that on one day they are able to strike with legal protections and on the next day that contract is unilaterally changed, I do not have to use the word “victimisation”. I can use some other word, perhaps “unfair” or “wrong”. That is the fundamental difference between me and the Minister, and that is what is causing the carpet to expand. Acknowledging that this was a probing amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the level of protection of unions when involved in industrial action.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I suppose I had better start by making clear that I am probing these relevant clauses because I do not think what is set out in the Bill is clear. I also think it is important that we set out where we are on statutory protection for unions. We are certainly probing what could be considered “reasonable”—a word that I find extremely difficult without any further description in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendments 34, 34A or 35 for reason of pre-emption.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 33 and 34. I share my noble friend Lord Collins’s outrage at this proposal. It is one thing to set minimum service levels and another thing to specify requisition notices by way of a work notice, but to require trade unions to organise themselves so as to break their own strike is a step that has never before been taken in this country and, so far as I am aware, is not required in any other country in Europe.
I remind the Committee that the provision in the Bill that we are seeking to discuss says
“the strike is not protected as respects that person’s employer if … the union fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that all members of the union who are identified in the work notice comply with the notice.”
So the obligation on the union is to
“take reasonable steps to ensure”
that all members comply with the notice. That is a very heavy obligation to put on unions. In principle it is objectionable, but the extent of it makes it even more so.
I cannot develop the objection on principle further, but there are some practical considerations here that perhaps the Minister can consider. We are envisaging a work notice given by the employer to the union, setting out names of a number of workers who are required to work and the work that they are required to do; we remind ourselves that, at the end of the Bill, it is said that that can be on a daily basis. If you have one employer and one strike affecting a small number of workers, that may be a relatively easy obligation to comply with.
However, I remind the Minister that the Bill applies to the education service. I have just looked up the Office for National Statistics site, which tells me that there are 32,226 schools in this country—although in fact I understand from the National Education Union that it balloted only some 24,000-odd of those. Think of that: even if we assume that only half the employers decide to supply a work notice, on a daily basis the unions are going to get 10,000 or 12,000 emails with a list of teachers who are required to be in. The union then has to set that list against its own membership database in order to determine which of them are members of the union, and then has to communicate with each one of them in order to demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps to ensure” that those members comply with the notice. This is just nonsense, is it not? It really must be.
Part of the problem is that the Bill does not define “reasonable steps”—that will be left to the courts to determine. I have done enough of these industrial action cases over the last 40 years to know that employers’ barristers—all friends of mine—are going to use every argument in the book to demonstrate that the union has not taken the “reasonable steps” that the employer says it should have. One of those, of course, will be to say that the union did not threaten to discipline any members who refused to comply with the notice or expel anybody, and to ask what it did do.
All of this is against the background of a union having committed itself, after a vote in favour by the members—a vote which meets all the thresholds—to advancing a strike. All the publicity that goes out from the union’s website and journal and in emails to members will say that it is calling a strike on, say, the 24th of the month, starting at midnight, and calling for members to join the strike, go on the picket line and participate—this is their fight and their struggle for better pay and conditions, or whatever it is. However, the union has to demonstrate that it identified those members appearing on a work notice in order to show that it took reasonable steps to ensure that those members complied. This is simply not realistic, and it is not acceptable.
Lord Fox (LD)
Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—I apologise for butting in—it is not quite as simple as that. What happens if, of the employers list, 30% of them go off sick? Who is accountable for filling in the gap? Is it the union? Does it have to take “reasonable steps” to find substitutes? The Minister shakes his head to say that it does not—that is good. Perhaps when he replies he can explain what happens in the event of a significant number of those people going off sick.
I will not add any more, as I am sure there will be plenty from the Benches of His Majesty’s Opposition.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments and want to complement and supplement the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hendy. As he said, these amendments deal with the fundamental issue of protecting trade unions from being forced to act against their own interests during a legally authorised dispute.
Like my noble friend, I find one of the most appalling parts of this skeletal Bill the requirement for trade unions
“to take reasonable steps to ensure”
members comply with a notice to strike-break. Ensuring compliance is the role of the trade unions, according to the Bill. What on earth does that mean in practice? There is nothing in the Bill to guide us here. How can unions be expected to police their own members who, after all, are simply ordinary workers who voluntarily joined the union? They pay their subscriptions and expect their union to support their democratic decisions, especially during disputes.
How is compliance normally ensured? How does the state ensure that people comply with its laws, for example? Again, as my noble friend Lord Hendy said, it is by threat of sanction or some kind of punishment. Is that what is meant here? Are trade unions supposed to threaten their own members with some kind of punishment if they do not cross their own picket lines? It is ridiculous. It is certainly not clear in the Bill whether that is or is not the case. But you can bet one thing: the bosses will see it that way.
What if the bosses or, ultimately, the courts decide that this punishment is not harsh enough? What if it is decided that the union did not take so-called “reasonable steps” or threaten punishments harsh enough to ensure that its members complied with the employer’s work notice? What then? Well, the whole strike loses legal protection, as does the union. What does that mean? The Minister in the other place was very clear in his letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights when he said that all workers would
“lose their automatic protection from dismissal for industrial action”.
In short, they could face the sack. There is no dispute about what was said in the other place.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this group gives me the opportunity to speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Earlier, she encouraged the Committee to be constructive when we debated whether an amendment was probing or constructive. Given the gestures from the Minister from a sedentary position, it is clear that, even if the Bill passes, there is room to specify these reasonable steps and new duties upon trade unions. That is my attempt to meet the noble Baroness half way and be constructive about a Bill that I think is hugely disproportionate.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend who just spoke, these amendments do not just expose a breach of Article 11, on freedom of association; they quite possibly expose a breach of Article 9, on freedom of conscience. I am afraid there are no right reverend Prelates here at the moment, but it is as if we were to say to the bishops, “We live in a modern, diverse democracy, even though we have an established Church, but it is now your obligation to actively encourage divorce and abortion.” Clearly, that would be ludicrous, and it is equally ludicrous to be saying to trade unions not only that, as indicated in Amendment 34, they should try to make their members aware of the legislation and of work notices, but that they should ensure compliance as well. The Government are making employers in relation to these public services the policeman for the Government, but it is a step too far to make unions the policeman for the Government as well—not least in the context of disputes which will continue to be lawful under this proposed legislation, but just some people will have to go to work.
Hence, I commend in particular Amendments 34, 34A and 35, which highlight that knowledge is one thing but ensuring compliance is another. They demonstrate at length that unions should not be disciplining their members for not going to work, and that picketing has to remain perfectly lawful, not least because most workers, we hope, or many workers, will still be entitled to go on strike, notwithstanding the minimum service levels and the specific work notices. The Bill needs to specify what is reasonable and what is required of trade unions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Does the noble Baroness agree that “reasonable steps” is a formulation used in a number of legislative formats? It has not been defined further on those occasions when it has been used in order to provide the flexibility to allow for the situation to be judged on its individual circumstances and, indeed, to allow for technological developments. What would have been reasonable, for example, in communication with affected workers 10 years ago could be quite different now. If we take the example of the duty to prevent bribery, “reasonable steps” is not defined in law and that is a virtue of the law, because it allows the situation to be judged at the time. That is why the Bill takes this pragmatic approach.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I totally agree, by the way, with the noble Baroness that there are areas of our common law in particular, and some statutes, where the inclusion of the adjective “reasonable” by itself will do the trick. I disagree that it is appropriate here because we are asking unions to do something that is inherently counterintuitive to their raison d’etre, which is to organise workers, in extremis, to go on strike. If one is saying to the union, “You are now having to push against the grain of your whole existence, the existence of your organisation, and your freedom of conscience and your association, which you are entitled to under the convention and the ILO”, and if one is pushing them in the opposite direction, one has to be very specific and proportionate about the nature of that totally counterintuitive duty.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
If I can elaborate even further, it is not necessarily the issue of being counterintuitive or not; if there is a voluntary agreement, both parties enter into that voluntary agreement with good faith. So if, as we have discussed many times before, safety is genuinely at risk and there are life and limb agreements, unions and employers work incredibly closely together to secure the consent of individual workers, and issue them with what we call exemptions to go across that picket line. That can all happen. But as soon as you introduce the law and remove that requirement for agreement, why is it our responsibility to make this work? It is not our responsibility; it is the employer’s responsibility. You cannot have it both ways. If we are going to have a voluntary agreement, we will do our best to honour and make that voluntary agreement work. If the state intervenes and dictates to workers under threat of dismissal, it simply will not work.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to the debate.
It should go without saying that, to achieve a minimum service level, employers, employees and trade unions all have a part to play, and the Bill makes clear what those respective roles are. As many Members have quoted, unions are required to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that the union members named in the work notice comply with the notice. If they do not, they will lose protection from legal claims.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, I say that there are a range of steps that trade unions could take, and what is considered reasonable can depend, as my noble friend Lady Noakes made clear, on each specific situation. First and foremost, a trade union should not call a union member identified in a work notice as required to work on a particular day out on strike that day. The trade union could also encourage those individual members to comply with the work notice and make it clear in its general communication with workers that, where members are named in a work notice and therefore required to work on a particular day, they should work on that particular strike day.
Before turning to the individual amendments, I will respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about what would happen if a number of the workforce are sick on the day of the strike. As I indicated to the noble Lord from a sedentary position, the responsibility of the unions is to take “reasonable steps”, as it says in the Bill. If union members named in a work notice are off sick, it is not the responsibility of the trade unions to find other members to take their place; it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that enough work notices are issued to fulfil that minimum service level.
Amendments 34 and 34A seek to diminish the responsibility of unions to take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are named on a work notice actually attend work rather than participating in strike action. These amendments would remove any obligation on the trade unions to notify their members of the need to comply with a work notice and not to take part in the strike, which, in my view, would reduce the likelihood that a minimum service level will be maintained or achieved. Therefore, the Government are unable to accept them.
Amendment 33 goes further and seeks to ensure that unions have no responsibility whatever for ensuring that their members comply if they have been named on a work notice. It also ensures that there are no consequences for failing to meet that responsibility. I submit that that is an attempt to disrupt the balance between the ability to strike and the rights and freedoms of others, and therefore the Government cannot accept the amendment.
If a union member does not cross a picket line when identified on a work notice, this will of course negatively affect the employer’s ability to achieve the minimum service level at all. The picket line is usually a critical place for a union to exercise persuasion over its members, and we have seen some egregious examples of that. However, the Bill and the achievement of minimum service levels would be substantially undermined if the union’s obligations did not extend to picketing, and therefore we cannot accept Amendment 35.
The responsibility of the union to take reasonable steps is a continuing one, because the impact on the public is the same if a minimum service level is not achieved, whether or not that results from picketing activities. Therefore, the Government cannot accept these amendments, which would significantly reduce the responsibilities of trade unions. Our view, which is reflected in the legislation, is that they need to play their part in ensuring that essential services continue during strikes. As always, we encourage unions to act responsibly and to fulfil their statutory duty that will be established by the Bill if it becomes law. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The simple fact is that the Minister tries to keep repeating a narrative that the Government are on the side of the public and, somehow, the Opposition are not. Actually, that is not the case, and, as I said before, the public will not be fooled.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Markham is here, because we had a discussion about the six sectors. There was a manifesto commitment on transport, but then that disappeared, especially when an impact assessment said that the law would not work and would prolong disputes, with greater impact on the public, so it is not worth doing. Now, we have had discussion about six sectors, a number of which have very strong voluntary agreements that work. Employers have told us that where people volunteer to do something, against their conscience, which is what we are talking about, it will be more effective. In the health service, NHS Providers is telling us that that is what it wants to do: it wants to ensure that people volunteer and that there are proper cover arrangements. What we are moving to here is compulsion, penalties and dismissal. It will have the complete opposite effect to what the Minister has said.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“(1A) At least one month before making regulations under section 234B, the Secretary of State must publish indicative minimum service levels for any service that the regulations will provide for.”Member’s explanatory statement
Requires indicative minimum service levels for any service to be set out before regulations can be made for that service.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This is going to be relatively easy to deal with, because the Minister has already given us an answer on the previous group. Actually, the answer he gave us is the reason I have separated out this amendment—I think it reflects something else that committees of this House have been extremely concerned about, certainly in the two reports that my noble friend Lord Hendy referred to earlier. When our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reports, it reports in a timely way that ensures that when Parliament and this House consider legislative proposals, we are informed. That information is also governed by the Government’s response.
The Bill has gone through the Commons stages with very little scrutiny and lands up here. We have three detailed reports on this piece of legislation, all of them fairly critical, as in paragraph 23 of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report. There is only one example of what a minimum service level might contain, which is the service in the transport sector, so everything else has been completely ignored. There are no examples; there is nothing we can assess to see how these powers we are being asked to give to Ministers may be used. The Delegated Powers Committee’s response is that if they do not tell us, we should not give them the power. When are the Government going to properly respond? I insist that they respond as quickly as possible, well before any sort of timetabling for Report. It is fundamental to our democracy that the Government respond to the requirements of Parliament. It is outrageous that they have not done so already. I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this is neither a wrecking amendment nor a probing amendment; it is a most reasonable amendment. Why? Because some of us who have constitutional concerns about skeleton Bills and Henry VIII powers do so because, even with affirmative procedure, Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships’ House are not able to amend secondary legislation, unlike Bills. The ability to improve the legislation just is not there. If that is going to be the case here, because we cannot persuade Ministers that these matters, if necessary in extremis, should be dealt with in primary legislation, what are we going to do instead?
If there is to be any possibility of improving minimum service level agreements and the regulations that impose them, there needs to be a statutory amount of time on the face of the primary legislation so that parliamentarians, while they will not get the process they get when a Bill goes through Parliament, will know that they will have at least a month to look at what is proposed and then try to speak to Ministers, write to Ministers and raise questions in each House. That, in some small way, would be an attempt to compensate for the fact that this is not primary legislative procedure with the ability to table amendments, divide the House and so on. This seems totally reasonable to me and a constructive amendment in the face of these Henry VIII powers that have caused such concern to the various august committees and the noble and learned Lords who normally sit with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—he is a bit lonely at the moment. It is totally reasonable.
I cannot understand what the objection could be to just being clear, even if informally, that there will at least be this amount of time to be able to improve the regulations. I think Hansard will record that the Minister, in answer to me on a previous group—it may have been a slip—said that Parliament can improve the regulations. Actually, it cannot, but by this kind of stipulation it could, at least informally, make its attempt.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is something of an hors d’oeuvre for the next group, so I will save my comments on this issue—although I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness—for Amendment 37, which I consider to be a meatier version of the same issue. This is clearly starting the move to the territory where we give Parliament the opportunity at least to scrutinise, if not amend, what comes before it. We will come to more of that in a few minutes.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, at the risk of saying what I said earlier, if this amendment is not accepted by the Government, that presents a problem to the whole House as to what is to be done about Bills that do not conform to the elementary requirements of various committees, where detail is not published in the Bills but reserved to regulations. That problem will have to be confronted if the Government are not prepared to accept this very modest amendment, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti put it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To start with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the Government’s response to the reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am happy to confirm that I expect to be able to respond to those reports before Report.
This amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, requires indicative minimum service levels to be set out before regulations can be made for that service. The Government recognise the importance of relevant parties having sight of a minimum service level before it is applied. That is why Secretaries of State must consult on minimum service level regulations and why Parliament will have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation and scrutinise those regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure, as I have said before.
The effect of this amendment is superfluous, given that all parties will be able to know the proposed minimum service levels once regulations are laid in the usual way. This approach ensures that the implementation of MSL is not significantly delayed, thereby not extending the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, will understand, if not agree, why the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
In light of those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment so that we can move on to the next group, where we will have a much more comprehensive debate.
Lord Fox
(4A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—(a) a draft of the regulations, and(b) a document which explains the draft regulations.(4B) Where a draft of the regulations is laid before Parliament under subsection (4A), no statutory instrument containing the regulations may be laid before Parliament until after the expiry of the 30-day period.(4C) The Secretary of State must request a committee of either House of Parliament whose remit includes either the wider UK workforce and industrial relations, or the sector to which the regulations relate, to report on the draft regulations within the 30-day period. (4D) In preparing a draft statutory instrument containing the regulations, the Secretary of State must take account of—(a) any representations,(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and(c) any recommendations of a committee under subsection (4C),made within the 30-day period with regard to the draft regulations.(4E) If, after the 30-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft or a revised draft, they must lay before Parliament a statement—(a) stating whether any representations, resolutions or recommendations were made under subsection (4D),(b) giving details of any representations, resolutions or recommendations so made, and(c) explaining any changes made in any revised draft of the regulations.(4F) The Secretary of State may make a statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not revised) if, after the laying of the statement required under subsection (4E), a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4G) In this section, references to “the 30-day period” in relation to any draft regulations is to the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the original draft regulations were laid before Parliament.(4H) For the purposes of subsection (4G) no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide Parliament with the opportunity for enhanced scrutiny of the regulations made under this section.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 43 in this group is also in my name. In a sense, this provides a more general debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has given us an amuse-bouche.
Amendment 37 introduces a super-affirmative process, the need for which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to, although not in those same words. Those noble Lords who have participated in the same Bills as me will be familiar with this format, because I have brought it to several Bills—indeed, I am doing so concurrently. I did not invent this process, but I feel that it is a very good way of giving Parliament a sense of ownership and oversight of the sort of things that we are talking about today. It seeks to provide Parliament with the opportunity for extended scrutiny.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of this group of amendments, particularly Amendments 42 and 44, which, if agreed, would remove the unfettered power of the Secretary of State to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation.
The strikes Bill is not a slight tinkering of existing legislation. What the Committee has before it is a far-reaching Bill. It is a draconian Bill which curtails the fundamental right to strike, weakens protections against unfair dismissal, violates ILO standards, and introduces the possibility of front-line workers facing dismissal for taking part in lawful industrial action. What we also have before us is a skeleton Bill, which until now has had little or no scrutiny—a Bill which has been rushed. It has been described as having Henry VIII clauses on supercharge and, as we have just heard, as a skeleton Bill lacking bones.
It is only 10 weeks since I had the privilege of making my maiden speech in support of two House of Lords committee reports which go to the core of our democracy: Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. In that debate, I spoke of the public’s growing distrust of our Parliament, not just in the devolved nations but throughout the UK. I acknowledged that the reasons for this were complex and that concern about the increasing use of statutory instruments was not something you would hear discussed in the pub or the supermarket, or even around the breakfast table. So why does it matter?
It matters because the processes of Parliament through which we govern are so important. They instil trust and confidence in our democracy. Secretaries of State who avoid parliamentary scrutiny call into question that very trust and confidence in our whole institution. It matters because global confidence in our economy is intrinsically bound up with confidence in our democratic traditions, and it matters because skeleton legislation could lead to the very government by diktat that noble Lords of all persuasions have set their stall against.
That is why the Bill we have before us today is so fundamentally flawed. It flies in the face of both those reports and, unless amended, it will give unfettered powers to the Secretary of State to revoke or amend primary legislation through regulation. That is why Amendments 42 and 44 are so important.
The Bill is deficient in so many respects. It is vindictive and divisive, and it does nothing to deal with the serious crises our public services are facing. The report of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which we have heard about, states that the Bill is not fit for purpose—a damning indictment by any standards. NHS Providers states that it will undermine partnership working in the NHS. The Joint Committee on Human Rights criticises the:
“Heavy-handed sanctions … compounded by vague rules”.
Comparisons made with other European countries simply do not stack up and have been roundly dismissed by those countries themselves. If the Bill becomes law, there is a real risk of contravening our international obligations. For me, it is simply unnecessary and harmful.
In the last few weeks we have seen public service workers, their unions and employers coming together to reach agreements, trying to help so many workers and their families who are suffering. Yes, it may have taken far too long, but both sides are now at the table, doing what they do best: talking, negotiating, reaching accommodations, finding ways forward and, most of all, working to restore relationships for the future. This Bill will damage all that good work. It is vindictive and malicious and it will set the scene for conflict and retaliation for the next decade, just at a time when there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I ask the Minister to accept Amendments 42 and 44. Failing that, I ask him to explain why he will not. More than that, I ask him to think again. Surely it is time for the Government to reconsider their position on the Bill and put it on the back burner, where it deserves to be.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support Amendments 37 and 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Many noble Lords have already commented on the Bill’s skeletal nature—I will not repeat their comments here. Amendment 43 would insert an invaluable safeguard, removing overreaching Secretary of State powers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation through secondary legislation. Liberty writes that, as it stands, Clause 3 is a “broad Henry VIII power”—we have heard that monarch referred to several times today; I fear I may refer to him again in a moment. It is also a prospective power that allows the Government to amend and revoke legislation not yet passed.
The delegated powers memorandum seeks to justify this power as a prudent provision to deal with any necessary consequential amendments identified in the Bill’s preparation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, reminded us, this means that the Government are taking this exceptional power either because they are not sure what they want to achieve or because they do not know how to get there. I do not believe either of those to be an adequate justification, and I am delighted to hear that Jacob Rees-Mogg may be of a similar opinion.
I enjoyed the remark of a noble and learned Lord earlier today that this is “Henry VIII on stilts”. It left me wondering whether I should be imagining the young Henry, fit and active, or the monarch in his latter—shall we say rather less athletic?—years. The older Henry would have crashed off his stilts to huge personal injury and embarrassment. I fear that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of these Henrician powers, will be an equally damaging and embarrassing moment in our nation’s governance.
Will the Minister please reflect on these probing amendments and come back to this House on Report with something more fit for the role and responsibilities of this kingdom’s Parliament in the reign of Charles III?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will talk to our Amendments 42, 44 and 45; I also support Amendments 37 and 43. My noble friend Lord Prentis mentioned the debate we had on the reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee, Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. The two chairs of the committees at the time led the debate and reflected opinion across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that this is a trend: these are not just technical statutory instruments but impinge on people’s fundamental freedoms. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, reminded us, and it has been repeated many times, that these are fundamental policy positions that can be debated and considered but not amended or revised. They cannot reflect all the things we have been talking about, particularly consultation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as I set out in the previous group, which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, described as the amuse-bouche grouping, there are already sufficient checks and balances built into the legislation before any regulations can be made. These include the need to carry out consultations with key stakeholders, including employers, employees, relevant trade unions and their members, who are all encouraged to participate in the consultations—we have some of the regulations out for consultation at the moment—and have their say in setting minimum service levels before they come into effect.
Parliament, including Select Committees, will also have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation and scrutinise the regulations. The Government firmly believe that this is the right approach. It ensures that a wide range of views can be gathered. Parliament can scrutinise regulations without significantly delaying the implementation of MSLs and therefore extending the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public.
Amendments 42 to 48 all seek to amend the provisions to make consequential amendments. The Government resist these amendments on the grounds that Clause 3 is a fairly standard clause, used regularly in primary legislation. Let me explain to the Committee what it is for. The power to amend primary legislation within the clause is a standard power with standard wording. Perhaps it will be helpful to give some examples of where it is on the statute book already. It is in Section 182 of the Health and Care Act 2022, Section 47 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, Section 23 of the Bus Services Act 2017—I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is not here to hear that—and Section 66 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. This power is not unique to legislation introduced under a Conservative Government. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that Section 51 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 also includes the same power. Additionally, the report, The Legislative Process: the Delegation of Powers, published by the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution in 2018, states:
“Delegating power to make provision for minor and technical matters is a necessary part of the legislative process … Delegated legislation, which is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny, should only be used to fill in the details.”
That is exactly what this power is intended for.
I remind noble Lords that the DPRRC did not draw attention to or raise concerns about this delegated power in its report published on 2 February. I know that it did on others, but it did not with this one. The power may be used only to make amendments to other legislation that are genuinely consequential on this Bill. It is there purely to ensure that the legal provisions within this Bill can be maintained after they have received Royal Assent. Therefore, the Committee will understand why I cannot support these amendments.
Amendment 48 seeks to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to primary legislation made by the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd. The Government again resist this amendment on the grounds that the provisions of this Act will extend to England and Wales and Scotland. Employment rights and duties and industrial relations are reserved in respect of Scotland and Wales. Therefore, it is right that the Secretary of State has the power to make consequential amendments to primary legislation made by the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd, if required to ensure that the new legal framework operates in a coherent way across the entirety of Great Britain.
The disproportionate impacts that strikes can have are no less severe on people in Scotland or Wales than they are in England. They have every right to expect the Government to act to ensure that they can continue to access vital public services during strikes. The Government will of course engage with the devolved Administrations as appropriate. I have met devolved Ministers to discuss the Bill. Obviously, we will engage further if any consequential amendments are required to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. As this clause is completely standard and has been introduced in several pieces of legislation, including by a previous Labour Government, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their unnecessary amendments.
Turning to Amendments 45 and 46, I believe that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is to delay the commencement of regulations providing for minimum services until the Government have assessed the Bill’s impact on recruitment and retention in the public and private sectors, and the impact on those with protected characteristics. However, the amendments as drafted are to Clause 3, which provides a power to the Secretary of State to make consequential provision. Therefore, the amendments would delay commencement of regulations which make consequential amendments to other legislation.
Speaking to what I believe is the intended purpose of the amendment, I say that the Government resist it. As I have already set out in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Secretary of State must consult on regulations, and they must be approved by both Houses before they can be made.
Impact assessments will be published for all subsequent regulations on minimum service levels and will, as always, contain a public sector equality duty assessment. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the already published impact assessments for the Bill and currently ongoing consultations on establishing minimum service levels in ambulance, fire and rescue, and rail services, all of which contain public sector equality duty assessments. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords to withdraw and not move their amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for painting a picture of King Henry VIII strutting across the Field of the Cloth of Gold on a pair of stilts.
Lord Fox (LD)
What an awful mistake to have made—I am very sorry and correct the right reverend Prelate’s territory. This is a serious group of amendments. The fact that it comes at the end of a day, and a long week, should not detract from that seriousness.
Listening to the Minister’s response, I was struck by the tone, which is: “This is a perfectly reasonable process. We are having a consultation and doing this and that. These people can contribute, and Parliament can contribute through the consultation”. It is for Parliament to make these decisions—not for the Government to do so, allowing Parliament to feed a little into the process.
The Minister has proposed the particular frame that we see in Clause 3 too many times. He went through a short list of Bills. I am aware of two of those, having participated in them, and I spoke against that power on both occasions. None of those is seven pages long and devoid of the detail required, but that is what the Bill is.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Surely all these other Bills consist of a bit more than two delegated powers. That is what this Bill is.
I am beginning to feel sorry for Henry VIII. He was born a King and born to rule. I am thinking more of Julius Caesar, who was supposed to be part of a republic and led to its demise so that it became an empire. How did he begin that process? It was by diktat, by becoming a dictator. Powers such as this pave the way for that.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, who has now introduced history; having failed geography, I will not enter into the history debate. She is completely correct: these powers are being taken for a Bill that is nothing. For the Minister to use the examples he did was completely inappropriate: they are different Bills of a different nature and scale.
We look forward to the Minister’s official response. I think he promised a letter on the DPRRC. I will study Hansard carefully on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, put it, we will be doubly resolved that this issue cannot be left in Committee. We will certainly come back, unless the Minister’s letter turns out to be better than I normally expect. That said, as usual, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Review: extending restrictions to other services
(1) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must review the extent to which this Act has achieved its objectives.(2) The review must consider whether it would be expedient to enact further legislation applying the restrictions provided for under the Schedule to other services, in particular, services that support police services, including forensic investigation services and telephone call handling services.(3) On completing the review, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament.”
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Amendment 48A is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I am conscious that it is the last amendment, and I will be brief. I mean it; I do not intend to take too long. I know this has been a big political debate, as has been demonstrated today. My reason for this amendment is not to do with whether the Bill should be here or whether there should be a minimum standard; it is to do with who should be on the list if the Bill becomes an Act.
The reason why I became interested this is twofold. First, in the list of services that are to be included we have ambulance and fire, but the police are excluded, and clearly they are one of the three emergency services, so I was intrigued by that; it seems odd. Secondly, that has been compounded to some extent by the Home Office’s response, for which I will say thank you in a second. I do not think it appreciates the fact that the civilianisation, which is what it is termed, of the police over the past probably 20 years has been a really good thing. It has taken cops out of doing things that they do not need to do and has put people who have better skills in to do them. We have moved from a situation where probably 90% or so of the police were police officers, to a stage now where probably nationally about two-thirds are cops and one-third are “police staff”, which is the term now used for civilianisation. Those people have some incredible skills and are part of the delivery of front-line service. They are not merely, important though it is, support. They are part of the front line.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is no longer in his place, for referring my queries in two places to the Home Office, and I am also grateful for the response to my query from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which I received yesterday. Even though I received it yesterday, I have not withdrawn my amendment from the Marshalled List as I do not think it really addressed my concerns. I raised two particular groups of police staff whom I thought were representative of the front line, but they are not the only two I could have raised. One was call handlers and the other was forensic scientists and forensic specialists, because I thought they were the easiest to sketch out quickly, but I want to touch briefly on some of the groups I could have mentioned.
The letter I received talked about call handlers only, and I was not persuaded by it for this reason. Of the Metropolitan Police, which has around 50,000 people even now, around 1,500 of them—probably nearer to 2,000—are call handlers. You could argue that that is only 4% of 50,000, but when the Home Office responded on how we can rely on the call handling still happening if police staff withdraw their labour, it assumed that police officers were going to backfill. There are problems with that assumption. First, 1,500 is quite a large number, and it is 1,500 not of the 50,000 but 1,500 front-line police officers. There are probably around 17,000 of them, so we are down to find about 10%. My concern is not just the fact that you would have to take them off the front line to backfill for call handling; you have to train them. They do not have the skills. They cannot do what I used to do, which was merely use the radio, answer the phone and make a written note. You now have to use a computer to work the radio; you have to use a computer to record all the data. There are an awful lot of things you have to be able to do before you can work in a control room. It is not as simple as going there and working. You cannot train someone in one year and then for five years, say, they do not do anything but they just turn up on a Monday and do it.
Secondly, we are talking about a very significant number of calls. Annually in England and Wales there are more than 20 million telephone calls with people in life-threatening situations or, at the other extreme, things that may not be life-threatening—but you do not know until you answer the phone which it is. It is essential that phones are answered and, frankly, it is the main way that people in this country still access police services. I know that there are more online options but, for an emergency, you are going to ring. That call has to be answered, which is why I majored on it.
In forensics, the number of these people is smaller but very significant. There are probably three levels of service provider: the people who go to the scene of the crime and collect the evidence at the scene; the people who work in the lab; and the specialists who try to interpret the results of the first two. They have substantial skills and are very well qualified, and there is now a forensic-accredited regulator. It is impossible for cops to go in and do that job. At the moment, I do not know the exact number of them—the Home Office might possibly mention this in the reply—but I suspect that 98% to 99% of people in forensics are police staff, quite properly. This means that it does not have the skills and it does not have the numbers, and so really is struggling. You could argue that, for a few days, this may not matter too much, but it matters for those low-volume serious crimes, such as murder and terrorism—I will not go through the list as noble Lords will know what is on it. It seems to me pretty important that forensics is still carried out.
The third group, which I did not mention the first time, is surveillance people. It used to be that police officers were the only people who did surveillance, but that is not the case now. Many forces in the country have police staff who are part of the surveillance teams. The argument goes that, if you do not need to arrest someone, why do you need police powers? That is quite right. If you have good observation skills, and are good at noting detail and at blending into the background, that is even more reason why you do not necessarily need to be a police officer. However, it is a big issue because the surveillance teams are employed only on serious crimes—they are not employed for minor crime; they will be used only for serious crime because it drags in so many resources. Without going into numbers, you are talking about significant numbers to get a surveillance team on the ground. It is important that that is still possible.
The final area is one that we do not talk about much in public but one to keep in mind. When you are dealing with serious crime, from terrorism to murder to other serious crimes, one technique involved is listening to telephone calls—surveillance and intercepting. If there is a threat to life, that will be within 24 hours, and probably seven hours a day. Someone has to do it, and it is now members of police staff will carry that out; there is no need to be a police officer.
I mentioned those series of examples, but the response from the Home Office talked only about call handlers. For the reasons I have set out, the response did not fully reassure me.
Noble Lords might be grateful to know that this is my final point. I mentioned in the Cross-Bench meeting my worries about the coastguard service, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, faithfully reported that back to the Home Office. People who do not live on the coast often forget that the only way you can co-ordinate the rescue of people at sea by people who are on land, in the air or on the water is through the coastguard. It has the facilities to communicate and map out where people are. It is no good talking to a police control room; it does not understand how things move around on the sea.
The coastguard service is vital, every day. It co-ordinates the lifeboat charity, the outsourced helicopter service, the police, ambulance service and fire service—we all know the people who get involved—and the coastguard who patrol at that point. If the coastguard is not there, I am not sure who the fallback is. It may be that there is a military option but the military has been pared back so significantly that it does not have coast-wide coverage for this reason. It may have coast-wide coverage for defence but I am not sure it has it for rescuing people and for the co-ordination of all the services involved.
I think it is worth considering these people when we talk about life-saving options and emergency services. There was a choice of two services other than the police, but I say that the coastguard service should be considered seriously. As I said, I was not reassured entirely by the Home Office’s reply.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. As the deputy mayor for policing and crime alongside him when he was a very distinguished commissioner, I always defer to his operational understanding. This is someone who led a very large service and understands the constraints that would occur if we saw a withdrawal of labour from these very specialist police staff who do more than just support police officers on the front line.
I draw attention to the fact that there is a real inconsistency here. As a former Fire Minister I am delighted to see that fire is included when it comes to call handling, and as the son of a surgeon I am delighted to see that the London Ambulance Service and other ambulance services are included in the Bill. Let us take London call volumes as an example, to give a sense of the order of magnitude. The Met answers 13,000 calls a day, which is nearly 5 million calls a year. The London Ambulance Service answers just over 2 million calls a year, while for the fire service it is probably nearer to 150,000 calls a year. We need parity when it comes to our three blue-light services, particularly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, put it, some of these calls are about wheels moving fast to save lives, even if they do not always know that is the case. I just do not understand not having the same approach to all three blue lights.
The noble Lord also raised forensics. The clear-up rate is about 95%—I hope that is still true—for murders in our capital city. That is largely down to a team effort that includes the use of forensics, and we have just heard about the importance of surveillance in tackling crime.
I think that even at this late stage we should consider the police service within those public services where we require a look at minimum service levels. It makes intellectual sense, and I know that at this stage we could introduce these amendments. Based on the response from the Home Office, we will see whether we bring this back on Report in the right part of the Bill—we were a bit late tabling the amendment, for various reasons.
It makes sense to have parity between the three blue lights. That is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. As deputy mayor, I always knew to defer to his operational excellence.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we are not particularly in the business of adding people to this Bill. If the noble Lords had attended all our sessions, they would have heard that we are not terribly appreciative of the Bill’s objectives, nor the way in which it goes about them. But I am grateful to the noble Lords for highlighting, as we pointed out earlier, the curious selection of services. We particularly questioned the decommissioning of nuclear installations, for example, where voluntary agreements already exist on a pretty comprehensive scale, so why is this in there?
I am also grateful that they have attracted a Home Office Minister here to answer the question. My question for him is: how much consultation was held with the Home Office by what was then BEIS, which drew up the Bill, about choosing who was on this list, and indeed who was not, when it came to drafting the legislation? That would be an interesting point.
I could not resist pitching in on forensic services. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, knows, since the change in the whole service, essentially its privatisation, a large lump of that service went into the police force—I was going to say it was “captured”, and that is not supposed to be in a pejorative sense. In the Metropolitan Police, a huge proportion of what was often delivered externally to the police force is now being delivered internally; I think it is around 80% in the case of the Met. That leaves 20% of the service coming from private sector providers and what I call specialist suppliers, which are often academics or people who have set up organisations. I suggest that it is much harder to make those two types of supplier fall within the remit of what the noble Lord envisions, given the debate we have had about involving private sector suppliers in the health service or transport. That debate has clouded how this would operate. Still, a large proportion of the forensic service is within the police ambit when it comes to management.
With those notes, the key issue is to ask the Home Office why fire and rescue is in but the police are not. What consultation process did that go through, and how did the decision come about? We would be interested to see inside the box.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I get the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, did not necessarily want to associate himself with the whole Bill, but was asking questions about who was included and excluded and why.
From our Labour perspective, one of the key worries about the Bill has been: are we going to see executive powers taken to add in sectors at different stages without proper scrutiny, proper accountability or consultation? Many see this as an attempt to ban strikes, a fundamental human freedom, through the back door. It might get to the stage where it would be easier to have a list of sectors not covered as opposed to those that are.
We oppose this amendment; fundamentally, because it fails to address the root causes of the problems people face. I hesitate to advise the noble Lord, who knows far more about this than I do, but since 2010 we have seen police funding cut by £1 billion. We have seen huge cuts to police officer numbers of 20,000 and a similar number of support staff being cut. In the Casey report, it was pointed out that those cuts in support staff were having a direct impact on police officers, who were having to cover that work too and that impacts the effectiveness of the service.
It seems to me that these are far bigger issues at a time when so many staff in the police service and elsewhere are facing real-terms pay cuts year after year, which have a real impact on morale, recruitment, retention and our ability to deliver the high-quality service that we all want to see. My sense is that it would be much better to focus on tackling the root causes of concern and discontent rather than suppressing the symptoms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and in particular my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for their amendment.
This amendment seeks to require the Government to undertake a review into whether and to what extent the legislation has met its objectives and whether the legislation should be extended to additional services, particularly police support services. On completion of the review, the report would be laid in Parliament. The Government are committed to reviewing the impact of the Bill within five years of when the first secondary legislation comes into force. Given that the detail of minimum service levels will be set out in the regulations that follow the Bill, this is an appropriate approach and timeframe.
On the specific point about extending the Bill to additional services, it is worth repeating that the key sectors covered by the Bill are broadly the same set of services that were listed as important public services in the Trade Union Act 2016, which have long been recognised as being important for society to function effectively. The 2016 Act did not include policing, in part because the prohibition on police officers taking strike action meant that this was not felt necessary.
Police staff across the country make an exceptional contribution to policing and we are grateful for the professionalism and dedication they show in their work. Police staff, including police community support officers and other members of the police workforce who do not have warranted powers, have no restrictions on their right to take industrial action and there are no provisions currently in place to provide minimum service levels. However, chief constables have a statutory duty under the Civil Contingencies Act to ensure that plans are in place to maintain key services when instances such as a strike occur. When police staff have taken strike action in the past, police forces have put in place plans to ensure resilience among their police officer workforce to ensure that essential front-line services are maintained.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Similar responsibilities apply in the fire service, in respect of the Civil Contingencies Act, so why is it necessary to include fire services in the Bill?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The context for the police is clearly different from that for the fire service, in that the vast bulk of police officers, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, are covered by the provisions of the earlier legislation precluding them from striking. As we discussed, this puts them and the force in a different category.
Contingency plans are largely based on the redeployment of police officers to cover operational staff roles. Police officers are of course prohibited from participating in strike action and, therefore, chief constables are able to meet any such obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act. I hope that goes some way to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The Government currently have no intention to add to the sectors covered by the Bill, and any future amendments would require separate primary legislation.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
The Minister’s point—that arrangements are being put in place for police officers to backfill—is fair, but there are two problems: if you have fewer and fewer cops who can be in the control room all the time, you have to keep them trained, and then you have to withdraw them from the street, which is a significant diminution. First, if you have to train them every year, that costs money and takes time—and then you presumably have to withdraw them when there is some kind of action. For me, it is not a reassuring answer to say that police officers can just backfill, because I am afraid that they cannot without training or experience in this vital part of the service.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The contingency plans are of course already enabled in the Civil Contingencies Act and, although this situation would be less preferable than the one that prevails in a non-strike scenario, it would be successful in the Government’s view. Furthermore, in the event that police staff take strike action, or when they have taken strike action in the past, police forces will or have put in place plans to ensure resilience among their police officer workforce, to ensure that essential front-line services are maintained. However, as noble Lords would expect, we will keep under review the sectors that we are discussing in this debate, and will not hesitate to take further action if we judge that necessary.
I will briefly address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. Clearly, from the Government’s perspective, we accept that the points raised by the noble Lord address a broader class of people—of police auxiliaries, if I might style them like that—than just those in call handling. Of course, he made a good point that this goes across the piece; the vital work done by broader police staff is something we should consider.
The noble Lord raised points in relation to His Majesty’s Coastguard. I confirm that the Department for Transport is still considering which other sectors minimum service levels may apply to. Therefore, the position on applying MSLs to coastguard services will be kept under review, and any decision regarding these services will of course be subject to consultation. Similarly, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh made some powerful points about the importance of auxiliary staff in this context, and I take those very much on board.
As to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I can confirm that there was consultation with other government departments prior to the selection of the list described in the Bill.
Turning to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, this is clearly not an attempt to ban strikes. The key sectors covered in the Bill are broadly the same set of services as those listed in the Trade Union Act 2016, which have long been recognised as being important for society to function effectively. Strike action in these sectors has the potential for far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not in any way involved in the dispute, and it is only right that these sectors are included within the scope of the legislation.
For all those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply and for the contribution of other noble Lords. I was not sure whether the Minister said that the Home Office or other departments had been consulted, but I will let that rest. I am grateful for the consideration and take his point that there will be further review in due course, be it the police or the coastguard. I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Royal Assent
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)