House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
We will continue to break the business model of organised crime gangs to keep the people of this country safe. We are disrupting their activities both domestically in the UK and internationally, including disrupting the work of the gangs behind the illegal small-boat crossings, and it is why the Criminal Justice Bill creates new powers to target organised criminal gangs. We will also publish a new serious and organised crime strategy soon.
Simon Jupp
Criminal gangs do not care about the people they are smuggling into our country and they must be stopped. We must stop the boats in ways that are consistent with our international obligations and end the dangerous journeys that risk human life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must focus on breaking the business model of these criminal gangs?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are being smuggled are seen as just products; they are expendable in the eyes of the people smugglers, and we must and will do everything we can to break their business model. I commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, who has recently been to Bulgaria, where in close co-operation with our international partners there we have seized boats and engines. We are breaking the business model, and we will continue to drive down those illegal small-boat crossings until we have stopped the boats.
Greg Smith
Serious organised acquisitive crime is hitting rural communities hard, with high-value agricultural equipment targeted for theft. The National Rural crime unit has recently recovered over £5 million of stolen equipment, nearly £1 million of which was recovered abroad. The Construction Plant-hire Association, NFU Mutual and the Construction Equipment Association have put significant funds into the NRCU but what more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that it has the resources it needs to tackle these serious organised criminal gangs?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area, including with his private Members’ Bill. He is absolutely right that the rural communities of this country need to be supported, and they will be. Driving down rural crime is an important area of work and we have provided £200,000 of funding to help set up the NRCU. My hon. Friend and I, and others in this House, understand the terrible impact this has, and we will continue to work with the rural police forces to drive down rural crime.
Antony Higginbotham
In Burnley and right across Lancashire county lines continues to be a problem, with organised groups peddling drugs and exploiting young people with no regard for the harm they are doing, not just to the communities but to the young people they are exploiting. Lancashire police are making very good inroads with an enhanced rural policing unit and neighbourhood taskforces, but what more can Lancashire Constabulary do to tackle the county lines issue and bring order back to our streets?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this vile type of criminality, which targets the young and the most vulnerable. As part of our fight against county lines we are investing up to £145 million in our county lines programme, and since it was launched in 2019 police activity has resulted in over 4,700 county lines being closed, over 14,800 arrests and over 7,200 safeguard referrals. We will keep our focus on this evil criminality.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given that, shockingly, the average time it takes for a crime to be charged has trebled since 2016, will the Secretary of State embrace the Police Federation’s “Simplify DG6” campaign and scrap the redaction rules his Government introduced in 2020, in order to cut bureaucracy, get cases to the Crown Prosecution Service quicker, and free up officers’ time to be out fighting crime?
James Cleverly
We are actively working with the CPS to simplify and speed up this process. I will of course look at the proposals put forward, because we want police officers out in their communities on the beat and tackling crime, rather than doing paperwork—important though that is.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The police report a 25% increase in shoplifting in recent months. There is much evidence, as the Home Secretary will be aware, that organised criminal gangs go into shops to try to steal as much as they can and target shop workers. As we approach Christmas, what assurance can the Home Secretary provide to shop workers—not just at Christmas, but across the year—that he will start dealing with these gangs and start realising that all retail crime is a problem in this country that needs tackling?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this issue. It is one that we take seriously through Operation Pegasus. We are working through the leadership of the police and crime commissioner for Sussex on this very issue. No doubt either the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) or I will have the opportunity to update the House on this work as it progresses.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
This autumn, the Government pledged to treat retail crime as organised crime, but with their Criminal Justice Bill, they have fallen at the first hurdle. There is no consolidated offence to protect retail workers, no strong signal on the £200 limit on investigations and a denial of reality on their hollowing out of neighbourhood policing. From the answers we have heard, the Home Secretary wants us to believe that we have never had it so good, but the ones who are thriving are organised criminals. Will the Government accept our amendments to add the protection of shop workers into the legislation?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman will know that attacking shop workers is already a statutory aggravating factor. We will look at what more we can do to protect shop workers. The retail action plan is in place, including the use of CCTV and facial recognition software. We will continue to explore all avenues to protect shopworkers, because they, like everyone else, deserve our protection.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
So far this year, we have reduced the number of these dangerous, illegal and completely unnecessary crossings by more than a third compared with last year, despite increases of nearly a third in Europe. Nevertheless, the number of illegal arrivals remains unacceptably high. We remain focused on delivering our comprehensive plan to stop the boats by breaking the business model of the people smugglers, and we will shortly be piloting emergency legislation through this House to ensure that flights to Rwanda take off as a matter of urgency.
Jill Mortimer
Figures on Thursday revealed that immigration to the UK is skyrocketing. Is it not time to realise that those well-intentioned international treaties and conventions agreed 70 years ago are no longer fit for purpose? We simply cannot accommodate all those who would qualify for asylum under existing rules. The world is facing troubled times and more mass migration. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all he can to raise the bar for those migrating or seeking asylum here and look at other solutions to stop people leaving their homelands, so that those countries can make better futures for themselves without the loss of so many of their young? Much of Europe is in a dire state because of mass immigration. We cannot let the United Kingdom go the same way.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. While some of those coming here to claim asylum have genuine grounds for asylum, many are economic migrants making spurious claims to game the system. For some nationalities, our grant rates are out of sync with European countries, and that is why we have undertaken extensive work to lower them. For example, the grant rate for Albanians reduced from 53% in June last year to 19% in June this year, and it has fallen further since, as that remains unacceptably high. Last month, we added India and Georgia to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries to the United Kingdom illegally. Clearly there is more work to be done, and we do not want to create any additional pull factor to the United Kingdom.
James Morris
In relation to the Rwanda policy, the Home Secretary was quoted as saying:
“My frustration is that we have allowed the narrative to be created that this was the be-all and end-all”
of Government policy. Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary? If he does, what is the Government’s policy on combating the boats and resisting illegal migration, and what is our policy?
Robert Jenrick
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I set out our comprehensive plan this time last year, it had many facets, one of which—an extremely important component of which—was our Rwanda plan, but that was not its only element, and we have worked intensively over the last 12 months on each and every other facet of that plan. Opposition Members jeer, but is that plan working? Yes, it is. We can see that from the fact that we are almost the only country in Europe where the number of illegal entrants is falling. It has fallen by more than a third, compared to a 30% increase in the rest of Europe and almost a 100% increase in Italy.
None of that negates the importance of interjecting a further critical deterrent. That is the crucial element of the Rwanda scheme. The difference between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition is that, frankly, they do not want to stop the boats, and they do not have the stomach to do a policy like Rwanda.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Since the previous Home Secretary was removed from her post, I think it is fair to say that the Immigration Minister has become a law unto himself. First, he briefed the media that he has been instructing the Prime Minister to tear up all our legal obligations to fix the unfixable Rwanda policy. Then he set himself on a collision course with his new Home Secretary by appearing to bet the house on the Rwanda flights taking off. To add insult to injury, he went behind his new boss’s back to present his laundry list to the Prime Minister, including a cap on social care visas and abolishing the shortage occupation list. Does the Immigration Minister have any respect whatsoever for the authority of the new Home Secretary? Given that he is said to be on resignation watch, will he confirm that he will resign if his proposals are rejected?
Robert Jenrick
Once again, we heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition about what they would actually do. The sad truth is that they have complete disdain for the British public. They do not appreciate that the public that we are sent here to represent demand that we reduce the levels of both legal and illegal migration. The Home Secretary and I will do absolutely everything in our power to achieve that. We are working closely with the Prime Minister, and we will set out further plans in due course. But the public watching the debate should be very clear: if they share our determination to tackle small boats or to reduce the numbers arriving in this country legally, they have only the Conservative Party to support.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Last week, a woman and a man died while attempting to cross the channel in a small boat; others in their group were hospitalised for hypothermia. Despite the clear risks, over 400 people in nine boats were detected crossing the channel in the past seven days. They clearly felt there was no other choice. The lack of safe and legal routes is putting people at risk. Will the Immigration Minister consider a humanitarian visa, as the Red Cross has recommended?
Robert Jenrick
All of us across the House abhor the deaths of individuals in the channel, and we are working closely with the French authorities to investigate the circumstances of those individuals’ deaths. But those individuals, like anyone seeking to cross the channel, are coming from a place of evident safety. They are departing from France. They are in absolutely no danger. They are in a country with a fully functioning asylum system of its own. There is no excuse for those people breaking into our country, putting themselves in the hands of people smugglers. We should be united in trying to deter that.
On the hon. Lady’s second question about safe and legal routes to the UK, she knows that we have issued more than half a million humanitarian visas since 2015—more than at any time in the history of this country. If she wants to do more, after the debate she should go straight back to the SNP Government and ask them to pull their weight and provide more safe spaces for asylum seekers and refugees back in Scotland.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister is deflecting quite a lot. [Interruption.] Government Members would do well to listen because their systems are not working; they are failing people every single day. In the first nine months of 2023, a mere 279 Afghans arrived in the UK by safe and legal routes. For each one, 17 Afghans came across on small boats. Today, The Independent has laid out the story of a mother of four—an Afghan special forces soldier who served in a unit set up by Britain, trained and paid for by the British armed services—whose application under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy was denied, along with many others from commando force 333 and Afghan territorial force 444. Why is the Minister failing so many Afghans?
Robert Jenrick
We do not encourage anyone, whatever their circumstances, to come across illegally in a small boat. That is a criminal offence and it should not be encouraged. We have supported nearly 25,000 people to come from Afghanistan since the end of the war, which compares extremely favourably to other European countries. We have issued more than half a million humanitarian visas, which is a record we should all be proud of. The Scottish National party always wants to make the UK out to be a small country, but that is not correct. The United Kingdom is a big-hearted country, and one of the world leading countries for resettlement—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have been here 20 minutes and have covered only two questions. We have a huge amount of business to get through, so can we please go faster? I would like brief questions and brief answers.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
It is a great pleasure to tell the hon. Lady that the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which was set up under the National Security Council, has been operating for about a year and is working closely with parliamentary authorities, devolved Administrations and local authorities around the country, alongside intelligence agencies, the police and opposite numbers from various parties. It has already updated many individuals across the House on different ways in which we can improve our own security and make sure that this country’s democracy is safer. The fundamental way to protect our democracy is to get involved, so I urge anyone watching to join a party—any party, but particularly the Conservative party—and get involved in politics, to keep the United Kingdom Government working for the people of the United Kingdom.
Cat Smith
Given the huge importance of preventing foreign interference in our democracy, does the Minister agree that, for the purposes of transparency, Lord Cameron should declare all previous contacts with, and moneys earned from, foreign Governments after he left the office of Prime Minister and before he was appointed Foreign Secretary?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point on how we keep our politics accountable. Rules are set out by this House, the other place, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and various other people on how we account for expenses, money raised and various forms of connection. She is right that those records must be kept up to date. The Prime Minister expects every Minister to do that, and I am very confident that the new Foreign Secretary—whom I congratulate—has done so.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Defending Democracy Taskforce has an important remit to defend our country and protect our sovereignty. Given the threats we face, it is vital that rapid progress is made. However, some matters require immediate attention. Can the Minister give an assurance that both the Three-Vodafone merger and the future ownership of The Daily Telegraph will be looked at, not just through the economic prism of competition but in accordance with the National Security and Investment Act 2021?
Tom Tugendhat
This is the first time that I have faced the hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box—last time we were side by side, so this is a bit of change. He raises some interesting and important points. The National Security and Investment Act was passed a little over a year ago, and the Deputy Prime Minister himself chairs the body that advises on it. That is incredibly important because, as we know, foreign ownership and control is a vital area of foreign influence in our Government and society. That is why we are looking not just at that, but at how the foreign media today are not just traditional media—some of whom we see represented up in the Press Gallery; some of them are even waving. Social media is now so important too. It is worth noting the recent Ofcom report that about a third of under-25s get their news from TikTok, which as we know has its algorithm written by individuals under the control of a foreign state—one that is not always friendly.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
There are a number of routes in the immigration rules allowing dependants to join family members in the United Kingdom. Where possible, people seeking to flee conflict zones should use those existing routes. In the past 12 months, we have allowed over 112,000 people to arrive under safe and legal routes, including over 6,000 family reunion cases.
Wendy Chamberlain
My constituent is on a student visa at St Andrews University. On 7 October, her five-year-old daughter was in northern Gaza staying with her grandmother. They have since had to flee south. We have had good engagement from the student policy team, but will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can reunify the family?
Robert Jenrick
I am very happy to look into the case with the hon. Lady. As a general rule, we believe migration should not be the first lever we pull in the event of humanitarian crises. We should be using the UK’s diplomatic muscle, our overseas development aid, as the primary way in which the UK can have the greatest impact in the world, but there are always cases where we make exceptions.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Last week’s net migration figures were completely unacceptable to the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which is why the New Conservatives, helpfully, have a 12-point plan that the Minister for Immigration could copy and paste to ensure we get those figures down. Will he extend the closure of the student dependant route to students enrolled on a one-year research master’s degree?
Robert Jenrick
First, we believe that the level of legal migration into this country is far too high. That has very profound impacts on access to public services, the productivity of our economy, and the ability of the UK to be a socially cohesive and united country. That is why we need to take action. We have already announced a specific policy with respect to dependants, which comes into force at the beginning of next year. We think it will have a substantive impact on the levels of net migration, but, as the Prime Minister said, we are keeping all options under review and will take further action as required.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
For the first time since the small boats crisis began, we are now closing asylum hotels, thanks to the good work done to reduce arrivals by more than a third; to the delivery of more appropriate forms of accommodation, such as on large disused military sites; and to better management of the existing permanent estate. I am pleased to report that the Home Office is making good progress on the first 50 hotels, which will exit by the end of January. We will be bringing forward a further tranche shortly.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. On behalf of constituents who have asked me, can he please go further and give a more definite date for the start and completion of the decant of asylum seekers at the Newton Park Hotel in South Derbyshire?
Robert Jenrick
When I first took this job, I was clear that the use of asylum hotels was completely unacceptable and that I would work with all in Government to ensure that we closed each and every one of them as quickly as possible. We are now in the process of closing those hotels. As I said in my opening remarks, the first 50 are closing seamlessly, so I expect to be in a position to announce the next set of hotel closures very soon.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Surely if asylum seekers had the right to work they would be able to pay for their own accommodation at little or no cost to the taxpayer.
Robert Jenrick
No, I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is extremely important that we reduce the pull factors to the United Kingdom. There are already plenty of reasons why economic migrants would want to make a life in the UK. Enabling them to work as soon as they arrive here would only exacerbate those problems.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am really pleased that the Government have been able to reduce the number of asylum seekers in hotels. The use of the Atlantic Hotel in Chelmsford for families is putting considerable pressure on our school places, especially as Chelmsford is already very short of school places due to the large numbers of people who have arrived from Ukraine and elsewhere. Will the Minister look again at the policy and ensure that when people with children of school age are placed in hotels, they are put in places where there are schools that have places?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this many times, and I want to ensure that that particular hotel is closed as quickly as possible, because it is having such an impact on her local community. The Home Office is working with her local authority, and we have made a commitment that we will not place further young people, or families with young people, in that hotel if school places are not readily available. However, I hope that the hotel itself will close very soon.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When asylum seekers requiring medical care are moved to a new location out of area, they go to the bottom of the waiting list, and as a result their health requirements are not met in a timely way. How will the Minister ensure that they do not slip back from receiving medical care that they urgently require?
Robert Jenrick
When moving asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another, we make provision to ensure that there is support for those with the most serious medical conditions, but it is important that we are able to move individuals around the estate, and we are currently in the process of closing hotels. That is our No. 1 priority, because the public want us to close them as quickly as possible.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
The Government have a plan to tackle illegal migration by means of a number of methods, and that plan is working. Small-boat crossings are down compared with those in other countries across Europe, where they are up. We are working closely with our international partners, including our nearest geographical neighbour France, we are dismantling the organised criminal gangs who are smuggling people, and we are taking action to reform the asylum system.
Miriam Cates
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Government announced emergency legislation to address the issues mentioned in the judgment. I welcome the proposed new treaty with Rwanda, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the new legislation promised by the Prime Minister must be clear and unambiguous in establishing that the sovereign will of this Parliament, as expressed in primary legislation, takes legal precedence over the interpretation of international treaties and principles?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that the excellent working relationship we have with Rwanda—on which I worked in my former role—will give us the opportunity to have a treaty that addresses the issues in the Supreme Court judgment. However, she is right to say that the legislation that will accompany that treaty must make it absolutely clear that the will of the British people, as exemplified by the actions of this Government, means we will work to get flights to Rwanda to make it plain that if people come here illegally they will not stay here. I can give her my commitment that we will do everything we can to make that happen.
Jack Brereton
Further to those points, will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that he will do everything he can to enable us to deliver the Rwanda policy, and will introduce all the necessary legal exemptions so that we can get on with those flights as soon as possible and provide the necessary deterrence to illegal migration?
James Cleverly
The Rwanda scheme is an extremely important part of our basket of responses. I will do everything to ensure that we drive down small-boat arrivals: that is the promise we have made to the British people, and that is the commitment I will deliver.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
One of the ways of dealing with illegal migration is to look at the number of cases. Can the Home Secretary say how many legacy backlog cases there are—if they have yet been triaged—and how many of those result from illegal migration?
James Cleverly
The historic backlog has been reduced by 65%. It has fallen by more than 59,000 cases since the end of November 2022. We have recruited 2,500 asylum decision makers, and we have increased tenfold the pace at which these decisions are made.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is well aware that under international law an asylum seeker cannot be described as an illegal immigrant. They are here legally unless and until they are found to have no valid claim to asylum after due process. Is it the policy of the Home Office and this Government to act within international law or to act outwith it?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes reference to the refugee convention, but his definition is only accurate if they come directly from a place of danger. I have visited France and it is a wonderful country. I can assure the House that it is not a dangerous country.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
In the last three years we have passed comprehensive new laws covering everything from domestic abuse and street harassment to online safety. Last year the Government added violence against women to the strategic policing requirement, placing it on equivalent footing to terrorism, and the Home Office’s award-winning Enough campaign is now entering its final phase with a firm focus on tackling perpetrator behaviour being rolled out across colleges and universities.
Julie Marson
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. I pay tribute to Sandra Conte and her team at Future Living in Hertford for everything they do to support victims of domestic abuse. As a magistrate, I specialised in domestic abuse courts and I am utterly convinced of their value, both for justice and for victims. Will my hon. Friend share her assessment of the initiatives to increase specialisation in court processes for sexual offending and sexual violence?
Laura Farris
The specialist sexual violence support project is now under way in Crown courts in Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook. It is at an early stage but is due to report in early 2025. However, my hon. Friend should be aware that any victim of rape or sexual assault may now take advantage of section 28 procedures, which have been rolled out nationwide to allow people to give their evidence privately and ahead of trial. We are also engaging close to 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers in the system to accompany victims every step of the way through the criminal justice system. As a result, rape prosecutions are higher today than they were in 2010 and sentences are approximately 50% longer.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell me how many forces are still not providing domestic abuse training to their officers?
Laura Farris
I do not have that answer. I will have to go back to the Home Office and write to the hon. Member.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to take on this important role. I pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her dedication and commitment. I am looking forward to getting to work.
A shocking new study has found that domestic abusers are controlling the finances of more than 5 million women in the UK. This cannot be allowed to continue. The Government have turned a blind eye to this issue for more than a decade, so what steps is the Minister taking today to tackle economic abuse?
Laura Farris
The hon. Lady and I have worked together a lot on domestic abuse since we were elected. She will know that economic abuse is basically a derivative of coercive control, which Clare Wade KC, in her review of domestic homicide, says underpins almost all domestic abuse. Tomorrow the Criminal Justice Bill has its Second Reading in the House. The Bill will see serious coercive control offences placed under the multi-agency public protection arrangements and offenders placed on the violent sexual and terrorist offender register.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
The Rwanda scheme remains an important part of our response to illegal migration and people smuggling. We will continue to negotiate with the Government of Rwanda on a treaty that will be underpinned by domestic law so that the Rwanda scheme will join the other effective parts of our response in stopping the boats.
Steven Bonnar
The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to override the Supreme Court by introducing emergency laws and a new treaty with Rwanda to save his unlawful deportation plans. So far, the UK has paid the Rwanda Government £140 million and the Home Office has spent £1.4 million on failed legal challenges, with no asylum seekers being sent there as of yet. How much has the Home Office spent in total on the Rwanda scheme? Can the Secretary of State give us a figure, please?
James Cleverly
The funding from the Home Office will be reported in the usual, appropriate way. I do not have the figures to hand, but I will make sure the House is updated on the costs.
The hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand how one responds to a legal judgment. He describes it as “overriding,” but I suggest that when the Government address the issues set down by the Supreme Court, they will not be overriding but respecting the voice of the Supreme Court.
I would make the point that we are committed to dealing with illegal migrants. I hear no such commitment from the Opposition. Until they come up with clear plans for how they will deal with this issue, they should support the actions the Government are actually taking.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Has the Home Secretary been struck, as I have, by the very small number of Opposition Members standing to contribute to questions on migration? Does he agree that, if democracies both within the EU and, like ourselves, outside the EU cannot find a solution to this problem, we will see the increasing emergence of far-right politicians in positions of power? That ought to frighten us all.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government were criticised by the Opposition and by voices across the continent when we started to take action to address the significant increase in the volumes of illegal migration. Countries across the continent are now looking at us in order to emulate the actions we are taking. Illegal migration has gone from something that the Labour party believed was a non-issue to being a core issue for Governments across Europe and North America. If the good people do not grip this issue, the bad people will attempt to do so, and I will never let that happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee has taken a particular interest in small-boat crossings. We produced a report last year that I suggest the new Home Secretary might want to look at. We have also visited France and Belgium this year. Owing to our interest and expertise in this area, will the Home Secretary consider giving the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights the opportunity to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of any emergency legislation that he plans to bring forward?
James Cleverly
There is an urgency to the legislation that we seek to put forward and, although pre-legislative scrutiny has a part to play, I will not do anything that delays the implementation of this incredibly important legislation.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
It is imperative if we are to crack the business model of the evil people smugglers that we operationalise the Rwanda scheme. May I register my profound conviction that the disapplication of elements of the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention will be necessary? The Court of Appeal cited human rights and the Supreme Court cited refoulement. What will it be next time, in the absence of Parliament expressly asserting the will of this House?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, although I do not want to prejudge the content of the Bill. I listened carefully to his points, and he and the rest of the House should understand that we will do everything we can to ensure that we break the business model of the evil people smugglers he highlights and drive down the small-boat arrivals. He is absolutely right that the deterrent effect of the Rwanda scheme is a key element of that multi-strand approach.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a tireless campaigner on this issue. I completely accept the need for a new police funding formula. We have been working on it extremely hard, with colleagues across government. I hope to have something further to say on the topic shortly, but in the meantime we are getting as much money as we can to frontline policing. This year, we have an extra £550 million going to frontline policing and £330 million going to support the police pay rise, which makes £880 million extra for policing this year.
Peter Aldous
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Nevertheless, it is concerning that Suffolk police were promised draft proposals for the review back in January. I urge him to get those to our local force as quickly as possible and, in the meantime, to work with it to improve the number of out-of-court disposals, where better delivery will relieve pressure on those in the force, who are working incredibly hard.
Chris Philp
They are indeed working incredibly hard. I am delighted to tell the House that Suffolk police currently have 1,425 officers, which is more than at any time in their history, and they have that in common with England and Wales as a whole. I support what my hon. Friend said about out-of-court disposals, which have an important role to play, particularly in treating drug and alcohol addiction, and mental health issues. I will work with Suffolk and other forces to make sure that those are widely used.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Since 2010, neighbourhood policing, where officers are embedded in local communities, has been decimated, despite its huge advantages. We therefore desperately need the repeatedly promised reform of the police funding formula. However, one of the quickest ways in which the Government can get cash to police forces for neighbourhood policing is by reforming the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 rules so that more of the money is handed to the police forces that confiscated it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the matter further?
Chris Philp
I would be happy to discuss POCA with the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues. However, there is something of a definitional confusion on this question about neighbourhood policing, because there are local police officers who work on response teams and should be counted as well. In 2015, the year the Opposition keep referring to, there were 61,083 officers in local policing roles, whereas there are now 67,785. That is a much higher number, and overall we have a record number of officers across England and Wales—149,566. That is more than there ever were under the last Labour Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We must move now to topical questions.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
My mission and that of this Government, on behalf of all people in this country, is to secure our borders and keep people safe from crime and terrorism. Good progress has been made in driving down crime and stopping illegal small-boat arrivals, but there is, of course, more to do. The Home Office has been considering further measures to mitigate migration, including by preventing the exploitation and manipulation of our visa system and clamping down on those who take unwarranted advantage of the flexibilities we provide. We will announce further details on these measures in due course. Tomorrow, we have Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, which will give police the powers they need for longer sentences for those who would harm others and will increase the trust in policing.
Judith Cummins
In my constituency, the antisocial and illegal use of fireworks continues to affect law-abiding citizens and our pets. Will the Secretary of State commit to reducing the legal limit for commercial fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB or less?
James Cleverly
I have not yet had the opportunity to read into that issue—it was not the angle I was expecting in this question—but the proposal seems a thoughtful one. I will give it due consideration, but I cannot make a commitment at this point.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I would be delighted to do that, and I support her call. To achieve precisely the objectives my hon. Friend describes, from April next year—in just a few months—every police force in the country will receive substantial funding commitments to conduct antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols, including against the scourge of off-road biking that she mentions. In forces where pilot schemes have been tried, including those in Essex, Lancashire and Staffordshire, we have seen reductions in antisocial behaviour of up to 30%.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been in post for two weeks, during which time he has used the same language to pick a fight with Stockton and show what he thinks of his own Rwanda policy, he has been attacked by his Back Benchers, and Downing Street has already been forced to confirm it still has full confidence in him. Twelve days ago he said the number of asylum hotel bed spaces are down, but four days ago Home Office figures showed they are up to a record 56,000—10,000 more than at the beginning of the year. Does he even know what is going on?
James Cleverly
Yes, I do. Let me expand—that answer was a by-product of the right hon. Lady asking a closed question at the Dispatch Box. I have been in this job for 14 days, and I am conscious that my counterparts around Europe and the world are grappling with many of the same issues. I would love nothing more than to be able to resolve them all in 14 days—I am good, but I am not a magician.
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps that mean an end to the magical thinking that the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor called for. We still have 10,000 more bed spaces than when the Prime Minister promised to end hotel use. The Home Secretary owes the House the facts. There is still no sign of anything on the failed Rwanda plan, because he knows it will not work, and nothing on the trebling of net migration to tackle the skills gaps that are driving work visas. The Government have been in power for 13 years and all we have is chaos and briefing wars. His Back Benchers are already calling him “Colonel Calamity”, and he has Corporal Chaos next to him on the Front Bench. Given the mess he has inherited and his penchant for profanity, does he accept that he is now up a certain kind of creek without a paddle?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady is someone I admire hugely, and one of the things I admire most is how she has managed to be at the Dispatch Box twice but has failed to ask anything resembling a sensible question about the issues we are discussing. When her party was in government, it addressed the volumes of migration by simply redefining people, wiping the slate clean and pretending there was never a problem.
I have said this about the right hon. Lady’s party in broadcasts, and I say it from the Dispatch Box: there is a gaping vacuum where the Labour party’s policy on migration, whether it be legal or illegal, should be. Unless and until Labour Members come up with something approaching a policy, I will continue to do what we know to be right: driving down small-boat arrivals and reducing the number of hotel rooms needed. We have closed 50 hotels and we will do more.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question. I have made it very clear to the police forces of the UK that when members of a minority group in this country tell us that they are living in fear, we must take action. I am pleased that the policing response this weekend was more robust than on previous weekends—the police are clearly listening to the conversations we are having with them and I commend them for doing so. I have spoken with representatives of the Community Security Trust and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and I will be having a meeting with the Chief Rabbi to make it absolutely clear that the Jewish community in the UK has the right to feel safe and this Government will take action to ensure it is safe.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I am pleased to report to the hon. Lady that that part of our Visas and Immigration service is now operating within its service standard, so there is a good service being offered to members of the public, but if she has any specific cases, she can bring them to my attention.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises an important matter for his constituents. As they live in the local authority beside Heathrow airport, it is true that his constituents bear a particular burden with respect to asylum seekers. We do provide £3,500 per asylum seeker to a local authority to help meet those costs, but a local authority such as Hillingdon does need our support, and I would be delighted to work with him in that regard.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Chris Philp
We should be clear that retrospective facial recognition puts hundreds, if not thousands, of criminals in prison. For example, it was used to catch a murderer who had killed somebody in a Coventry nightclub who was then identified using an image taken on a mobile phone. That is a murderer who would not be in prison but for the use of retrospective facial recognition.
Live facial recognition has been used extensively by two police forces and experimentally by two others, including by South Wales, which has an excellent Labour police and crime commissioner, Alun Michael, who has led the way in this area in a way that is safe and that respects privacy. Critically, if someone’s face is scanned and they are not on the wanted list, their details are deleted immediately, which I hope provides reassurance on the questions of privacy. Where it has been used, wanted people, including a wanted rapist and a wanted sex offender, have been apprehended who otherwise would have gone free. I would hope that the entire House can agree that catching wanted rapists is something that we can all get behind.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly why we are having an emergency meeting of the Defending Democracy Taskforce tomorrow to assess these issues. The incidents that we have seen in this country since 7 October—absolutely hateful incidents—have left some people feeling unable to make the arguments that their constituents would expect them to make because they feel vulnerable or they feel threatened. That is why I have been engaging on a protective security review not just for the Government, but for all Members of this House, and for other elected officials around our country. It is completely wrong for our democracy to be silenced by anyone, and it certainly should not be silenced by cowards.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
James Cleverly
The Government have a duty to British nationals, which we take very seriously. I recognise the plight of many non-British nationals in Gaza, which is why, in my previous role and now supporting the current Foreign Secretary, we have long pushed for a humanitarian pause. I am pleased that that is in place. We will continue to work with the international community and the countries in the region to ensure that support is given to the people in Gaza who need it and that action is taken to end this conflict, so that Israelis as well as the Palestinian people can live in peace and security.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As we seek to reduce the backlog of asylum claims, there is a temptation to grant more economic migrants the right to remain here. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no slackening of the rules to root out economic migrants so that they can be returned to where they came from?
James Cleverly
The whole point of having border control is that we can ensure that our migration system supports our economy and our social cohesion. Both those things are important. We want to ensure that we are choosing the right people, in the right numbers, at the right pace. I give the House a categoric assurance that that will always underpin our thinking with regard to what future changes we might make to the legal migration processes.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. The control of products is often a matter for the Department for Business and Trade, but since he has raised it at Home Office questions, I will happily take his point away and look into it carefully.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As was referenced earlier, there is growing concern in the retail trade about increases in shoplifting and, in particular, violence against shop workers. Does the Minister agree that we need custodial sentences for persistent offenders?
Chris Philp
Persistent offenders should certainly get sent to prison. There is no question about that. Of course, it is now a statutory aggravating factor if the victim of an assault is a retail worker. We are concerned, though, about retail crime. We do not want to end up in the same place as some American cities, such as San Francisco, with out-of-control looting. We want a zero-tolerance approach. That is why just a few weeks ago we launched with police a retail crime action plan, which will see police always follow up evidence, including CCTV evidence and the use of facial recognition technology; always attend where necessary to investigate, or where someone has been assaulted; and particularly target prolific offenders and criminal gangs.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
James Cleverly
A fantastic question, well worth asking. The contract that all Ministers have is with the British people, to work hard on their behalf and to focus relentlessly on their priorities. That is something that every Government Minister takes seriously, and something totally lacking in the narrative coming from the Opposition Benches, including the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The award-winning Cotswold Canals Trust volunteers have had enough of antisocial behaviour such as graffiti, dog mess and worrying drug paraphernalia everywhere. It is ruining their hard work on the canal network and is putting them at risk. Part of our successful approach to trying to tackle it is getting CCTV down the canals. Will my right hon. Friend let us know what is happening with the safer streets funding? Police and crime commissioner Chris Nelson and I have made an application, and we are waiting to hear about it.
Chris Philp
A round of safer streets funding was distributed for the current financial year, and we will make an announcement shortly about the following financial year. More money will be available, and it will be up to police and crime commissioners to decide how they spend that money. We will also confirm shortly the roll-out of antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols across the entire country—across all 43 police forces in England and Wales. Where those have been trialled so far—in Essex, Staffordshire, Lancashire and elsewhere—we have seen 30% decreases in ASB. Pretty soon, that will be available in Gloucestershire as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes proceedings on questions.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will take points of order after the urgent question, unless they are directly relevant to what has just been said.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is not directly relevant to a question that has just been answered—well, I am guessing it is not. [Interruption.] Order. We are moving on to a very important matter and I expect the House to be quiet to listen to the urgent question from Mr David Lammy.
Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause
(5 months, 1 week 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
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israel-Gaza situation and the humanitarian pause.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his question.
A tragedy is unfolding in the middle east. Israel has suffered the worst terror attack in its history and Palestinian civilians are experiencing a devastating and growing humanitarian crisis. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, last week’s agreement was a crucial step towards providing relief to the families of the hostages and addressing the humanitarian emergency in Gaza. This pause has provided an important opportunity to ensure that much greater volumes of food, fuel and other life-saving aid can enter Gaza.
On 24 November the British Government announced a further £30 million of humanitarian assistance, tripling our existing aid budget for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year. During the pause, the fourth UK aircraft, carrying 23 tonnes of humanitarian aid for Gaza, arrived in Egypt, bringing the total amount of UK humanitarian aid provided via British aircraft to 74 tonnes. That aid is now being dispersed to the United Nations to support critical food, water, health, shelter and protection needs in Gaza and to pre-position emergency supplies in the region.
Today is the fourth and final day of the agreement. The British Government are supportive of the current pause in hostilities continuing, but that is for the Israelis and others in the region to agree. We are clear that this pause should not be a one-off. The increased flow of fuel and relief supplies over the Rafah crossing accompanying the pause was welcome and must be sustained. This pause should act as a confidence-building mechanism for future pauses, including those solely on humanitarian grounds.
We welcome the intensive international co-operation, including efforts from Qatar and the USA, that led to this agreement and we thank partners for their continued work. We remain committed to making progress towards a two-state solution. Britain’s long-standing position on the middle east peace process is clear. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. The UK will continue to work with all partners in the region to reach a long-term political solution that enables both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the granting of this urgent question.
Holding the Government to account is a sacred duty of this House, but with Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton not here, this feels more like a game of “Where’s Wally?” I start by asking the Minister what progress is being made with Mr Speaker to ensure that all Members can question the Foreign Secretary.
The past 72 hours have brought much-needed relief to Israel and Gaza. I pay tribute to the work of Qatar, Egypt, the United States and the Red Cross. The images of hostages who have been released and reunited with their families have moved us all, but the situation remains bittersweet, with many more still captive and their families in agony.
In Gaza, the past few weeks have been an unimaginable nightmare for innocent Palestinians. The civilian death toll, which includes thousands of women and children, is shocking and intolerable. The increased flow of aid and fuel remains a fraction of what is required. More time is needed. We must urgently support the parties to reach an agreement to extend the cessation of hostilities, to secure the release of remaining hostages, to deliver more aid to ease the unacceptable humanitarian catastrophe and, crucially, to provide a stepping stone towards an enduring cessation of hostilities, ensuring that what follows the war is a durable political solution.
The danger is that the fighting will resume in mere hours. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the vital efforts to extend the cessation of hostilities fail, we cannot return to the situation of before the pause? We cannot go back to Hamas continuing rocket attacks on Israel, we cannot go back to unacceptable siege conditions in Gaza, and we cannot go back to the scenes of thousands of innocent Palestinians being killed.
The two-state solution remains the only credible basis for a lasting peace: a future in which Israel is secure from the threat of Hamas terrorists, in which Gaza is not occupied and its people are no longer displaced, and in which Palestinians and Israelis can enjoy security, dignity and human rights.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for most of his comments and, in particular, his desire to ensure an extension of the cessation of hostilities. On what he said about the broader situation, the Opposition Front Benchers and the Government are in complete agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what progress has been made in ensuring that the Foreign Office and the Government’s foreign policy is subject to proper scrutiny in this House. I completely agree with him that there is a sacred duty—I think that is the term that he used—to ensure that all that scrutiny is made available. I just point out to him the extraordinary authority that a former Prime Minister can bring to bear in carrying out those tasks, as he will have seen from Lord Cameron’s recent visit to the middle east. Lord Cameron is the most senior Foreign Minister in Europe—and, indeed, in the region—and I think that both sides of the House will see the benefit of that in the days and months to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This is a serious matter. The UK’s priority in the region is security and stability for the whole of the middle east, yet today Netanyahu plans to push forward with a special budget that will fund expansions of the settlements by over $80 million. As a friend, we have a duty to say to Israel, “Do not proceed with this plan. It takes us further away from peace and, frankly, it will risk not only the truce, but the ability to get home hostages who are still held by their terrorist kidnappers.” What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we speak plainly to our friends?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her comments. She is entirely right that Israel must comply with international humanitarian law, and must not only prosecute but punish those who have been involved in settler violence. The Government are delivering tough messages to all sides in this dreadful conflict, and we will continue to do so.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, and I commend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for the integrity and courage with which she raised her concerns.
Does the Minister agree that the only way we will see a lasting and just peace in the middle east is through the establishment of a two-state solution in which Israel and Palestine are recognised as equal sovereign states with equal rights and equal responsibilities to uphold international law? Given that there are now credible accusations of war crimes against both sides in this conflict, will the Government confirm that they will give full support to the International Criminal Court to investigate without fear or favour all allegations of war crimes, regardless of who is accused of them, so that any perpetrator of a war crime, regardless of whose friend or foe they may be, is brought to justice before the international courts? Given that it is an offence in international law to supply weapons where they may be used in the commission of a war crime, what recent reassessment have the Government made of the legality of their arms sales to the middle east?
Finally, I do not know whether the Minister was in the Chamber to hear my plea on behalf of my constituent Dr Lubna Hadoura—I have written to the Foreign Secretary specifically about her—but will he agree to meet urgently with me and her, and with the Home Secretary, so that we can find an effective way to get the families of UK nationals who are still stuck in Gaza out while the peace lasts? If we do not get them out during a ceasefire, we might not get them out at all.
Mr Mitchell
Both the Lord Chancellor and I have made clear the position in respect of the International Criminal Court. I set it out in the House: it is not for Government Ministers and politicians to address these matters, but for the prosecutor and the administration of the International Criminal Court.
The hon. Gentleman rightly identified future thinking as critical at this time. He will recall that the progress that was made at Oslo was on the back of the first intifada. That should give us some confidence in these dreadful sets of circumstances that we need to focus on the future, and a lot of thinking is going on in that respect. To address his point about the arms regime, he will know that the British Government have the toughest arms export regime in the world, and we adhere absolutely to that.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
During this lull in fighting, the whole House wants to see as many hostages as possible released and as much aid as possible getting in, but both sides are committed to recommence fighting. Does my right hon. Friend think it is time to call for a demilitarisation of Gaza in the longer term, and to consider future governance, security and humanitarian plans? Will he consider a joint summit with the United States, bringing together all the stakeholders to look at the long-term implications of this conflict?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of looking to the medium and the long term, and of doing all that is necessary to bring together people of good will to make progress on the two-state solution. We want to see all hostages released as swiftly as possible, and we also want to see greater volumes of food, fuel, medicine and life-saving supplies getting into Gaza, principally through Rafah but also through any other plausible means.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Is it the Government’s contention that further hostilities—the destruction of the south of Gaza in the way we have seen the north destroyed, with tens of thousands more killed—will lead easily to a permanent ceasefire, or will it simply embolden the militants?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right about the very worrying position that exists in the south of Gaza at the moment. He will have seen that the United Nations and others are considering islands of deconfliction, particularly around Khan Yunis, including safe zones in order to dispense aid. But, like me, he will be very aware of the dangers experienced in other safe zones in the past, and the risks for civilians who are involved in them.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How can a two-state solution, which everybody says they want—everybody in this Chamber, at any rate—ever come to pass while Hamas remains in control of the Gaza strip?
Mr Mitchell
I do not think that anybody thinks that Hamas are going to remain in charge of the Gaza strip in the medium term, or anything longer than that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is great when the Minister gives very quick answers, which is what I asked him to do.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The prospect of the carnage simply resuming at the end of this pause is a really dreadful one. What is the Minister’s assessment of the likelihood that the ceasefire might be made permanent if, over a period of some further days, all the hostages are released?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statements by the Israeli Government about the number of hostages to be released and the possibility of extending the pause in that respect. The view of the British Government is that we should do everything we can to ensure the hostages are released as speedily as possible. The longer that this pause continues, the greater chance there is for humanitarian aid to get into Gaza and for progress to be made.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any ceasefire continuing should be linked to the release of more hostages? Is he concerned that Hamas are breaking the agreement in several ways, including by separating parents and their children when releasing one but not the other? They have not even allowed the Red Cross to visit all remaining hostages, which has been a rule in conflict for over 100 years. Is he not concerned about these breaches?
Mr Mitchell
I am immensely concerned about the fate of all the hostages. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, there were originally about 240 hostages, and as of midnight last night 58 hostages have managed to get out. At the same time, 117 prisoners have been released by the Israeli Government. The sooner that all the hostages are out, the better.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
Like others, I felt a real sense of relief watching some of the hostages who emerged and were reunited with their families yesterday. The Minister said that this pause could turn into a one-off; it need not. I know the issues are incredibly complicated and I know it is only through international intervention that we will make progress, but could he tell us what steps are being taken not to get to a two-state solution at this point, but to start a peace process between the warring factions that will eventually, one would hope, lead to a two-state solution? What steps are being taken now by international bodies?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. She speaks with great wisdom on these matters. I can tell her that the discussions to which she refers are going on throughout the region and internationally. Britain is playing a proper part, not least by the visit last week of the Foreign Secretary to the region.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I very much hope we can extend the humanitarian pause. The Minister, as a former serviceman, like me, will know that the United Kingdom armed forces make extraordinary efforts to avoid civilian casualties, even when targeting terrorists embedded in civilian areas—a point that has been made very forcefully to me by veterans in recent days—so will the United Kingdom carry on very clearly calling on Israel to follow similar standard operating procedures?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary, during his visit to Israel, made precisely that point.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The pause is obviously welcome because it will save lives. The horror of 7 October has not gone away. The disaster of the killing of 14,000 people in Gaza has not gone away. There has to be a recognition, as António Guterres has pointed out, of the underlying issue, which is the occupation of the west bank and the settlement policy, and the violence that so many Palestinians have had to put up with for decades and decades. Does the Minister believe there is a role now for the United Nations to do more to try to bring about not just a ceasefire, but a long-term peace that will involve the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestine?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is always a role for the United Nations, but it has to be adapted to the circumstances. What he says about a ceasefire, which I have heard him say before, is fettered by the fact that Hamas have made it perfectly clear that they do not want a ceasefire. They want to repeat what they did on 7 October, the day of those terrible events. To have a ceasefire, we have to have two sides that want a ceasefire, and that is clearly not available on this occasion.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The conflict in the middle east is tragic, complex and, sadly, protracted. While the House is broadly aligned on the need to defeat Hamas, could the Minister please reassure me of the efforts being undertaken to urge restraint among all protagonists in the protection of civilians and non-combatants in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
Britain has been very clear about the importance of respecting international humanitarian law in all circumstances.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister must be concerned by those who seek to play down what has actually happened to innocent Israelis in the middle east. He must be gutted and alarmed that Leo Varadkar, the Prime Minister of a neighbouring state of ours, described one of the victims, an eight-year-old girl who was kidnapped and abused, as “lost”. That is unbelievable. Is the Minister concerned by the ever-increasing extremism and the anti-NATO and antisemitic attitudes emanating now from the Republic of Ireland? Is he going to have a word with that country about its attitude?
Mr Mitchell
The Government have been absolutely clear on where we stand on antisemitism and Islamophobia: we condemn both without qualification and will continue to do so.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As the Minister knows, there has been no pause in violence in the west bank, whose largely defenceless population has been subjected over a number of months now to a campaign of what the Americans and French have referred to as “terror”. The Minister says he is asking tough questions and delivering tough messages to both sides, but when will those tough messages turn into tough action? The Americans have already said they will institute visa bans against those settlers who are perpetrating violence, but we have been talking about this for years to little or no effect. Given the centrality of achieving a two-state solution, is there not a strong case for us to take firm action against settlers, those who arm them and those who support them?
Mr Mitchell
On his visit last week, the Foreign Secretary delivered very strong messages, when he was in Ramallah and when he saw the Israeli Government, about the importance of stopping settler violence and ensuring that people are put before the courts and punished—that if the perpetrators of settler violence were identified, they could be put before the courts.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The release of hostages and the increase in humanitarian aid is very much to be welcomed, but I am sure the Minister and the House agree that only a political solution can bring about a lasting peace. In that spirit, will he support Labour’s calls for a new middle east envoy? Also, I was not quite clear from his answer to the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, so will he say that the UK state condemns and is utterly opposed to the settlements?
Mr Mitchell
The position of the British Government on the illegal settlements is absolutely clear. On the possibility of having an envoy, a whole range of different envoys are engaged in this, but if it was appropriate for us to deploy an envoy on behalf of the Government—either a humanitarian or political envoy around the region—we would have no hesitation in doing so.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Despite the pause over the last few days, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and is likely to continue to be catastrophic. While no one doubts the right of Israel to defend itself, the fact is that it is an occupying power and as such has clear legal obligations to the civilians of Gaza, so when my right hon. Friend next speaks to his Israeli opposite number will he remind him of those obligations and ensure that even after the pause ends sufficient aid is allowed to get through to the population of Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
We are doing everything we can through the United Nations and other contacts in the region to ensure that aid and support gets through to those who need it so desperately in Gaza, and my right hon. Friend may rest assured that we will continue to do that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The massacre by Hamas on 7 October is completely indefensible, but the Minister will be aware that since then no fewer than 5,500 Gaza children have died and there are hundreds more missing, probably under rubble. The Secretary-General of the UN said Gaza is “a graveyard for children” and most recently the executive director of UNICEF has said that pauses are not enough and only a ceasefire will save children. When are the Government going to use their good offices to press both sides for a ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
Regardless of whether the right hon. Lady’s figures are correct, we know that there has been appalling loss of civilian life in Gaza. In respect of what she says about the relative merits of a pause or ceasefire, we can build on pauses, but I point out that it is the policy of those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Government to press for humanitarian pauses, and that is what the British Government will continue to do.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The release of some hostages is incredibly welcome, but the price for that is that Israel has taken the difficult decision to release many Palestinian prisoners held for terror offences, including bombings and stabbing attacks, in exchange for its civilians held in Gaza in unimaginable conditions. History shows us that previous security prisoners released by Israel have gone on to commit further terror offences. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this should be of concern to the whole world and that we must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel to support it to combat terror?
Mr Mitchell
The point that my hon. Friend makes, particularly about prisoners reoffending, underlines the importance of our pursuing every possible way of getting on to a political track. When this ghastly violence finishes, or is significantly diminished, everyone must bend every conceivable sinew to drive forward a new political process for peace.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Few of us can imagine the trauma of being permanently displaced from our homes and never allowed to return. Can the Minister reassure the House that Israel will not take land in Gaza, as some Israeli Ministers have threatened to do, and that Palestinians will be allowed back to their homes and lands, particularly given that 1.7 million out of 2.3 million people living in Gaza have been displaced?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. and learned Lady is right to talk about the deeply contentious issue of land, but what she says is, as I have understood it, absolutely in accordance with the policy of the British Government.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pogrom that took place on 7 October, followed by the horrific levels of antisemitism that we have seen across our own country, let alone across the western world, with people feeling frightened to leave their homes for no other reason than their religion, shows why the state of Israel has a right to exist and must always be allowed to defend itself?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. What happened on 7 October was a pogrom, and it was the worst loss of life by Jewish citizens on any single day since the holocaust and 1945.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his assistance in getting some of our constituents from Birmingham out of Gaza. On his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), for clarity can he state explicitly that UK Government policy is that every displaced Gazan currently must be allowed to return to their lands?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks, and I remind Members from all parts of the House to use the hotline to communicate with the emergency centre in the Foreign Office on behalf of constituents. In terms of the Gazans who have been displaced by the terrible events started by Hamas on 7 October, it is the British Government’s policy that those displaced should be able to return to the area from which they were driven.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The mayor of Gaza City told al-Jazeera that not one litre of fuel has reached the Gaza municipality, likely due to the fuel being misappropriated. Why does the Minister think that the international community should trust Hamas to distribute any aid?
Mr Mitchell
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are extremely careful about how British aid is distributed and do it only through trusted partners of whom we have long and detailed experience. This is perhaps the most observed and scrutinised aid programme of any that the British taxpayer and British Government pursue anywhere in the world.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In Home Office questions, I raised the case of a constituent on a student visa whose five-year-old daughter is in southern Gaza, and I am hoping for a similarly positive response from this Minister. Were that visa to be granted, would that young girl be allowed to travel with her grandmother into Egypt with the FCDO’s support so that they can be reunited?
Mr Mitchell
It is unwise and difficult for me to give granular advice on that specific situation from the Dispatch Box, but I will happily speak to the hon. Lady immediately afterwards and ensure that we do the best we can.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks about increasing aid to Gaza and the Palestinian people at this time, and I note what he said about the care taken to ensure that British aid reaches its intended target, but given what we now know about the industrial scale of theft and misappropriation of aid in Gaza over the years, who is making sure on the ground right now that British aid is not being taken by Hamas terrorists?
Mr Mitchell
For aid in Gaza, we have not dealt with either the Palestinian Authority or the Hamas civil administration for many years, and we do everything we can to ensure that it gets through to the people who need it. He will have seen that, I think yesterday, a British aircraft delivered 4,500 blankets and 4,500 sleeping mats to al-Arish in Egypt. That was the fourth planeload. We will continue to ensure not only that we supply as much aid as we possibly can to meet the need, but that it gets to the right place as speedily as possible.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my grave concerns about what Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent chilling comments—that “Nothing will stop us” and that he will fight “until the end”—will mean for Palestine and the further massacring of innocent civilians? We need an urgent ceasefire to prevent the further loss of life. How many more Palestinian children must die before the Government will call for a permanent ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself, following the appalling events of 7 October. Of course, civilians, as well as hospitals, must be protected under international humanitarian law, but the hon. Member should be in no doubt that the Israeli Government have the absolute right to defend themselves under international law.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The recent discovery of a tunnel from the Shifa Hospital to a residential property is yet more clear evidence that Hamas are using civilians as human shields in this conflict. Will the Minister therefore join me in clearly condemning that activity, and will he confirm that the Government will continue to support Israel in its fight to eradicate Hamas from the region?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, call for the pause to transition into a ceasefire. What discussions have the Minister and the Foreign Secretary had about opening up corridors for humanitarian aid to cross between Israel and Gaza, in the light of the poor infrastructure in Gaza for moving humanitarian aid from the south to the north?
Mr Mitchell
We are in those discussions. As the hon. Member will know, the access through Rafah is fettered by physical and non-physical circumstances. When the Foreign Secretary was in the region last week, he had specific discussions about other means of access into Gaza, and we are doing everything we possibly can, together with our humanitarian partners, to achieve a far greater degree of access for humanitarian supplies.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
From the perspective of my constituents in Bolton, we are watching the worst horror movie conceivable, and hitting pause will only delay the suffering. Boltonians are asking: when can all sides simply hit the stop button and bring about a ceasefire? If a ceasefire is not possible, what discussions are we having with Israeli and other counterparts about extending the pause after today?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend will have seen the discussions going on and the offer that, apparently, the Israeli Government have made if extra hostages are released. All those discussions are continuing. Clearly, the longer the pause, the more support and humanitarian supplies can get into Gaza. The British Government are doing everything they can to progress both those things.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s words that the Foreign Secretary is exploring other crossings being opened to get aid into the south. It is essential that that happens. If the hostilities resume, as most people expect, what representations are the British Government making to try to stop them moving south, where almost 2 million are displaced and there is nowhere else to go?
Mr Mitchell
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave a little earlier about the south. We are conscious of the fact that very large numbers of people are kettled into the south, which makes the supply of aid even more dangerous, unless there is a comprehensive agreement that there will be no hostilities around the areas where aid is being distributed. We are very conscious of that, and we are working with our partners to make it as safe as possible for aid to be distributed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is extremely good news that some hostages have been freed. However, polling suggests that 75% of the Palestinian people support the atrocities by Hamas, and 85% refuse to even consider the coexistence of a Palestinian state with the state of Israel. At the moment, Palestinian prisoners are being released to the west bank and Hamas are getting the credit, so does the Minister accept that there is a risk that Hamas not only dominate Gaza but end up dominating the west bank as well?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend’s comment underlines the importance of a political track emerging and being pursued with great vigour as soon as possible.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I want to talk about the plight of women in Gaza, which a constituent raised with me. Every day, 180 women in Gaza give birth, most without water, painkillers, anaesthesia for caesarean sections, medical supplies or, as we know, electricity for incubators. With more than 5,000 women expected to give birth in Gaza next month, will the Minister join Labour in calling for Israel to protect hospitals in Gaza and allow continued access to medicine, food, water and electricity to protect those women and newborns during birth?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the very large numbers of women who are seeking to give birth in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We are conscious of that in the aid and humanitarian supplies that we are making available. I completely understand the importance of the humanitarian support workers who are in Gaza—extremely brave people who are putting themselves in harm’s way to support their fellow citizens with humanitarian supplies. Nowhere is that more true than in the area that she described.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It has been extremely moving to see hostages starting to come out and aid starting to flow in. I hope that the truce will hold, but if the hostilities start again, please can the UK Government make every representation to Israel that, in its legitimate efforts to stop the terrorism, it must do more to prevent mass loss of civilian life, especially children?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend speaks with experience and wisdom, and the answer is yes.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
My constituent Adam Abu Warda has close family in Gaza and is extremely anxious that they should have the opportunity to get out and come to the UK, as other MPs have said. What is the Government’s policy on our constituents wishing to get their very close family out of Gaza to bring them to the UK?
Mr Mitchell
We are seeking, within the rules the hon. Gentleman will be aware of, to facilitate, in every way we can, those people leaving Gaza. As I said to one of our colleagues, it would not be sensible for me to look at the granular detail of the specific case he raises on the Floor of the House but, if he has contacted the emergency consular support team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and has any concerns about the responses he is getting, I am of course very happy, to look at it myself.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Three weeks ago today, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and I were at Kibbutz Kfar Aza, where we saw and heard things we will never forget, and where the smell of rotting blood and flesh was still pungent in the air, such was the butchery not only of Hamas but Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the thousands of Gazan civilians who streamed into the kibbutzim afterwards. There are some in this place who seem to give the impression that the only barriers to peace are the actions of the Israeli Government. The facts are that it is Hamas who are responsible for every death that occurs. It is the Palestinian Authority whose textbooks preach hate against Jews, not just in Israel but around the world. It is Palestinian Authority schools that were closed in a day of celebration after 7 October and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), hold such appalling views about coexistence. Will the Minister, in his dealings with the Palestinian Authority, encourage them to deal with their issues of extremism?
Mr Mitchell
I can tell my hon. Friend that the British Government are doing everything they can to address the issues behind what he says. I have no doubt, having been at that terrible location so recently, that that is something he will never forget.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What is the Minister’s understanding and assessment of the Netanyahu Government’s medium and long-term strategy for the Gaza strip?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman, who is extremely experienced in these matters, will draw his conclusions from what the Israeli Government are saying, just as the British Government do.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Now that the welcome temporary pause is under way, what steps are the UK Government taking to press to ensure that it becomes an enduring ceasefire as soon as possible, leading to a political process for peace? Are the UK Government being clear with the Israeli Government that, as they seek to continue in their legitimate aim of destroying Hamas, a return to the relentless bombardment, the razing of Gaza and the indiscriminate killing of civilians is not acceptable, proportionate or within international law?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady will know, Israel has an absolute right to self-defence. It has been made clear around the world that that is the right position, but it must abide by international humanitarian law.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Nobody can help but be moved by the sight of hostages being released. This weekend, the Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on a public platform, said that the UK Government
“will not rest until each and every one of them is back in the loving embrace of their families,”
It is now more than a month since anybody at all from the UK Government has had any contact at all with the UK citizens who have family members as hostages—not a single phone call. The Minister will know that I have come to this place and pleaded with him to help arrange just five minutes of Lord Cameron’s time with the hostage families to tell them what the Government are actually doing to help get their family members released. It has been other Governments who have helped to identify that their family members are alive. Please, finally, can the Minister listen to those UK citizens asking their Government, “What are you doing to help get my family released?” and arrange that meeting as an urgent matter?
Mr Mitchell
My understanding is not the same as the hon. Lady’s in respect of the British hostages. She will know that over 200 British nationals and their dependants have so far left Gaza, and we are working around the clock to get the rest of those out who want to leave. In terms of the hostages, my understanding is not the same as she has said.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we cannot accept civilians being ordered to flee into areas that are then subject to bombardment? Does he share the concerns of the UN and the World Health Organisation about the proposals for a safe zone with no infrastructure, which will cause more problems down the line?
Mr Mitchell
There are very serious problems with safe zones. We have learnt about them the hard way from the events that took place in Srebrenica, in—indeed—Rwanda, and in northern Iraq. It is an absolute preoccupation of humanitarians—including those in the United Nations, who are neuralgic about safe zones—to ensure that if we are to distribute very large amounts of aid we have the capacity to do so before too much longer, and we all hope that we are able to do it in the safest possible way.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the pause, with hostages released and aid delivered, and I hope that it continues. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the role that he has played to date, but if this drip, drip of hostage release is to continue, surely more must be done to ratchet up the pressure and ensure that the Red Cross and the Red Crescent gain access to the hostages about whom we have no information. Is that not a priority now?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right: it is a priority. There is some suggestion that while I have been on my feet in the Chamber, Qatar has announced that the truce will be extended by two days. Obviously we all hope that that is true, and that as a result more hostages will be able to leave.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister is known for his humanitarian instincts. Does he agree that it is unthinkable now to resume the indiscriminate destruction of Gaza and the lives of Palestinian civilians? Is he urging on the Israeli Government the need to find a means of removing the threat from Hamas that does not cost the lives of thousands of women, children and other non-combatants?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman speaks with wisdom about the position of civilians. All of us hope that the loss of life among innocent civilians can be minimised, but I would point out to him that the Israeli Government have an absolute right to go after the murderous terrorists of Hamas who perpetrated the dreadful events of 7 October.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I have heard from a number of constituents in Glasgow North who are concerned that weapons either manufactured in the UK or sold by UK companies are being used in this conflict. Can the Minister say how regularly the UK is assessing its obligations under the arms trade treaty to ensure that arms are not being transferred when there is a risk of their being used to commit or facilitate breaches of international humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the British rules for the export of arms, scrutinised by the Committees on Arms Export Controls, provide for the toughest regulations anywhere in the world. If he ever believes that those rules have been infracted in any way, he should of course inform the requisite authorities.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Despite the four-day truce, there remains a humanitarian emergency in Gaza. We cannot return to the indiscriminate and unprecedented killing that we have seen take place on such a horrific scale over the last seven weeks; we need to see a lasting, permanent ceasefire. As I have been repeatedly urging the Minister, will the Government use the UK’s influence at this crucial moment to secure the ceasefire, so that we can see an end to the bloodshed and the war crimes, allow desperately needed aid to reach all parts of Gaza, and create space for the immediate return of all hostages and meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the aid and support to which he has referred reaches those who need it. Of course, if we build on a humanitarian pause, the longer the pause goes on and the longer there are meaningful negotiations in Qatar, or through Qatar, the better. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware, however, that it is the policy of his own Front Bench as well as the British Government not to call for a ceasefire—which, for the reasons I have given, would be impractical in any event—but to pursue the pauses that are desperately needed for humanitarian relief to arrive.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that to prevent a catastrophic outbreak of waterborne diseases such as cholera, we need to see fresh water flowing and sanitation and hygiene supplies being delivered on a large scale, alongside key public health and medical support?
Mr Mitchell
Those are indeed the supplies that are necessary to stop the situation that the hon. Lady described developing further. There is a very real risk of waterborne diseases and cholera breaking out in Gaza, and that is why we are diligently pursuing the humanitarian policies I have set out in every way we can.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
No one would wish to withhold the aid that has been given to the innocent civilians—who, let’s face it, are only suffering because of a war instigated by Hamas terrorists—but does the Minister agree that this cynical drip-feed release of hostages is a further act of terror by Hamas and that the pauses in the fighting will be used by them to regroup and rearm? Will he give me a reassurance that our Government will not fall into the trap of acceding to Hamas’s incessant demands for indefinite pauses, rather than allowing the Israeli Government to do what they need to do, which is to engage in security action to destroy Hamas in their own dens?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that Israel has every right to exercise its self-defence in rooting out the Hamas terrorists and murderers. The British Government are very clear that what he has said about that is absolutely right.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Given that Hamas have been crystal clear that they have no intention of ever wanting a permanent ceasefire, what discussions have been had with the Palestinian Authority to build its capacity and competence, to ensure the transition to a two-state solution?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Hamas and the ceasefire, with which I completely agree. In respect of building Palestinian capacity, he will know that Lord Cameron was in Ramallah last week discussing that and many other associated matters with President Abbas, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister there.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I was incredibly relieved to get my constituent’s family, 13 of them, across the border and home through Egypt. I pay tribute to the staff in the consular section who supported them, but the support was patchy and the cost of them returning was over £5,000 on commercial flights. What more can the Minister do to supercharge that consular support and to reimburse those families who had to come home on commercial flights? Would he consider meeting my constituent’s family to learn the lessons that they have experienced of having to flee in the middle of a bombardment?
Mr Mitchell
I will certainly be pleased to arrange for Foreign Office officials to meet the hon. Lady’s constituent’s family if she believes that there are lessons to be learned, but I also want to pay a special tribute to all the men and women who work in the emergency centre at the Foreign Office, who have often been working through the night throughout this emergency and have done so with huge diligence, tenacity and commitment.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
As many other Members have made clear, a two-state solution is critical to a lasting peace. So, given the announcements made today, can the Minister make clear the UK’s complete opposition to illegal settlements in the west bank?
Mr Mitchell
The position of the British Government—and, I believe, the Opposition—is one of complete opposition to illegal settlements.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Many of us believe that a humanitarian pause is inadequate, as Israeli aggression continues unabated, but that would be as nothing in terms of a failure to support a ceasefire if Britain were to be complicit in any way with Israeli aggression. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the base at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus is not being used by the US military to supply Israel, and that British military and intelligence sites in Cyprus will likewise not be used to support Israel or America in this conflict?
Mr Mitchell
I think the hon. Gentleman confuses the role of the British Government, which has been set out clearly by the Prime Minister and by me in the House. He will also know that when it comes to the use of intelligence assets and so forth, we do not discuss those matters across the Floor of the House.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It was welcome this weekend to see the release of Israeli child hostages. It was also welcome a moment ago to hear the Minister talk about a possible two-day extension to the pause in fighting. We heard two weeks ago from the Israeli Foreign Minister, who said:
“Israel has some two or three weeks until international pressure seriously begins to increase”.
He said that the pressure was “not particularly high” but was increasing. Given that the Israeli Government were not feeling pressured internationally a fortnight ago, how can the Minister be sure that the pressure from the UK Government is being felt now, so that the rules of engagement of the Israel Defence Forces will distinguish between terrorists and civilians?
Mr Mitchell
The people who serve in the Israel Defence Forces are taught, as part of their basic training, the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law. I would contrast the Israel Defence Forces, who seek to defend Israeli citizens, with Hamas, who seek to use their citizens to defend Hamas.
Points of Order
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have advised the respective offices of the Members of this House whom I will refer to in this point of order.
It is extremely sad that the Home Secretary has not the guts to admit to his appalling remark made about my Stockton North constituency from the Front Bench and apologise to the people I have the privilege of representing. There was quite a chain of events last week. After I raised the matter on the Floor of the House, the Home Secretary first denied he had said anything at all. The Government then sent out the Tory party chairman, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to tell the media that no words had been uttered from the Treasury Bench. Next up, the Leader of the House said she had been told by the Home Secretary that he had not said anything and she believed him. She did not help matters by referring to Billington instead of Billingham.
The Home Secretary clearly took them both for fools, as he later admitted his foul language but tried to minimise the damage to his reputation by claiming his remark was aimed at me. Well, that is all right then, but it is untrue and has been shown to be untrue. My thanks go to The Mirror and the other wizards out there who have proved that to be the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who used the word “untrue.” I think he could find another way of expressing that, as I am sure he would not wish to say that a right hon. Member of this House had uttered something that is untrue.
Alex Cunningham
Madam Deputy Speaker, you offer me a considerable challenge. Perhaps the Home Secretary has inadvertently misled people across the country in relation to this particular matter.
This matters: people take notice of what the Home Secretary says and his talking down of Stockton and Teesside can have consequences. He may have whispered in your ear, Madam Deputy Speaker, but can you advise me on whether you have any powers to order him to return to the Dispatch Box to apologise in person for insulting Stockton, rather than hiding behind the half-truths uttered on his behalf by an official?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will recall that I answered a similar point of order last week, when he raised one aspect of this matter. At that point, I reminded all Members of the need for good temper and moderation in the language they use in this Chamber.
The hon. Gentleman asks me if I have power to require the Home Secretary to return to the Chamber. I do not need such a power; the Home Secretary has voluntarily returned to the Chamber, and if he would care to make a point of order, further to that point of order, the Chamber will hear him.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) accused me of making derogatory remarks about his constituency. My response, issued through my office, was that I did not, would not and would never make such comments about his constituency. What I said was a comment about him. My apology was for using unparliamentary language, but I will make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt and with no ambiguity, that I did not, would not—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) asked the Home Secretary to come back to the Chamber to issue an apology, and he is doing so. [Hon. Members: “No, he isn’t.”] Enough. Hon. Gentlemen ought to hear what the Home Secretary has to say and not shout from a sedentary position—please.
James Cleverly
I know what I said. I rejected the accusation that I criticised the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. My criticism, which I made from a sedentary position about him, used inappropriate language, for which I apologise. But I will not accept that my criticism was of his constituency, because it was not.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is not a debate, and the matter is now closed. The Home Secretary has rightly come to the Chamber. He has apologised to the hon. Member for Stockton North. That is an apology rightly due to him, and I hope he will accept it.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will briefly listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to close this matter.
Alex Cunningham
I do not require any apology for an insult against me, because it did not happen. You have just intimated, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Home Secretary has apologised to me. He has not apologised to me. He has not apologised to the people of my constituency. He has apologised for using unparliamentary language.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has issued an apology. I require an apology for the use of unparliamentary language, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, has given that apology. It is my understanding that he has also apologised to the hon. Gentleman—whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not is a matter for him. I require an apology, the Home Secretary has issued that apology, and the matter is now closed. I must say that the people who elected us to this place expect us to concentrate now on the very serious matters that we have been discussing and that we are going on to discuss.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), whom I have informed of this point of order, stated that the economy would be “£40 billion smaller” in 2027 than the Chancellor forecast in March. The Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that in fact in 2027 the economy will be £15 billion larger than the Chancellor stated in March, so there is a £55 billion gap between Labour’s words and economic reality. Let me ask a procedural point. If the right hon. Lady were a Minister, we could call for an urgent question or demand a statement, but how can Members of this House compel her to come here to correct the record and apologise for inadvertently misleading Members of this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and for his having given me notice that he intended to make it. Will he confirm that he has informed the right hon. Lady of his intention to raise this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see that he is nodding to say that he has informed her. I am glad that he has done so. I have no ability to require a shadow spokesman to come to the House. It is Ministers who are responsible for answering to the House. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the interpretation of statistics. One person’s statistic is another person’s non-statistic. I have discerned that over many years in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has used the opportunity of a point of order to make his point.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is still in his place because, as the urgent question illustrated, there is huge concern about unfolding events in the middle east. In the spirit of the updates and briefings to the House about Ukraine, would it be in order for the House to request regular statements on ongoing and unfolding events in the middle east, in order that it can reflect the concerns expressed from across the House, as illustrated by the responses to the urgent question?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he knows that was not a point of order for the Chair but a question he can ask of the business managers and the Leader of the House on Thursday mornings, when the Leader of the House takes questions. I see that the Minister is eager to answer the point. It is not a point of order, but given the sensitivity of the subject that we are discussing, I will allow the Minister to make his point.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that we in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are the servants of the House. We will do anything that the House requests in respect of fulfilling the role that he has identified, which we fulfilled in the early days of the Ukrainian war.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have never known the Minister not to relish an opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box and I am sure that we will hear from him many times in forthcoming weeks. Let us hope that it will be with good news, to counteract the bad news that he has had to deal with today and on other days.
Bill Presented
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary Lucy Frazer and Lee Rowley, presented a Bill to make provision to amend the rights of tenants under long residential leases to acquire the freeholds of their houses, to extend the leases of their houses or flats, and to collectively enfranchise or manage the buildings containing their flats, to give such tenants the right to reduce the rent payable under their leases to a peppercorn, to regulate charges and costs payable by residential tenants, to regulate residential estate management and to regulate rent charges.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).
Ways and Means
Autumn Statement Resolutions
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we resume the debate, I remind hon. Members that, as Mr Speaker said last week, in addition to being present at the start of the debate, after a Member has spoken in the debate, they must, as an absolute minimum, remain in the Chamber for at least the next two speeches, and preferably for the majority of the debate. It is unfortunate that I am having to repeat this, but we have had some difficulties in recent weeks where Members think they can come in, make a speech and go away again. Taking part in a debate means being here for the whole of that debate. Of course, the occupant of the Chair will allow a Member to go out for a short while, but not for hours and hours. Cigarettes An amount equal to the higher of — (a) 16.5% of the retail price plus £316.70 per thousand cigarettes, or (b) £422.80 per thousand cigarettes. Cigars £395.03 per kilogram Hand-rolling tobacco £412.32 per kilogram Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £173.68 per kilogram Tobacco for heating £325.53 per kilogram”.
It is also essential that every Member who has spoken in a debate should return to hear the winding-up speeches from both the Opposition spokespersons and the Minister. I remind hon. Members that that sometimes includes the spokesperson for the Scottish National party. If, for any reason, hon. Members are unable to return to the Chamber for the wind-ups in today’s debate, for which approximately 46 people have indicated that they wish to catch my eye, they should please let me know now and I will withdraw their request to speak. I remind Members that records are kept when Members speak and fail to return, and that is taken into account when deciding whether to call Members in subsequent debates.
It should not be necessary to say this, but I have to say it: both the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons responding to the debate are expected to remain in the Chamber for the majority of the debate, so that they are able to respond effectively to points raised by other hon. Members.
I should draw the House’s attention to a minor correction that has been made to resolution 21. A revised version of the resolutions paper is available in the Vote Office and online. It includes a note setting out the correction that has been made.
Rates of Tobacco Products Duty
Debate resumed (Order, 23 November).
Question again proposed,
That—
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (table of rates of tobacco products duty), for the Table substitute—
“TABLE
(2) In consequence of the provision made by paragraph (1), in Schedule 2 to the Travellers' Allowances Order 1994 (which provides in certain circumstances for a simplified calculation of excise duty on goods brought into Great Britain) —
(a) in the entry relating to cigarettes, for “£393.45” substitute “£422.80”,
(b) in the entry relating to hand rolling tobacco, for “£351.03” substitute “£412.32”,
(c) in the entry relating to other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco, for “£161.62” substitute “£173.68”,
(d) in the entry relating to cigars, for “£367.61” substitute “£395.03”,
(e) in the entry relating to cigarillos, for “£367.61” substitute “£395.03”, and
(f) in the entry relating to tobacco for heating, for “£90.88” substitute “£97.66”.
(3) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force at 6pm on 22 November 2023.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Securing good jobs for more people is the best way out of poverty, and the best route to raising living standards. That is why, in his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a cut in the main rate of employee national insurance from 12% to 10%. That is why we have raised the national living wage, representing a boost of more than £1,800 to the annual earnings of a full-time worker. That is why we are delivering the next generation of welfare reforms to help thousands more people into work. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, we on the Conservative Benches will never tire of reminding Opposition Members of our record since 2010: nearly 4 million more people in work; numbers on company payrolls at a near-record high; the unemployment rate around halved; more than a million fewer people in poverty; and UK economic inactivity lower than the G7, the EU and the OECD average, and down nearly 300,000 from its pandemic peak.
As Conservatives, we believe in making sure that those who can work have every opportunity to do so. Indeed, that is precisely how we can afford a strong welfare safety net for those who are unable to work and support for the most vulnerable in our society.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If we were to insist on work visas being given only to people who are on average UK earnings, would that not create a virtuous circle by which only skilled people came here, and care homes would be forced to pay proper wages, ensuring that more people came off my right hon. Friend’s books and got into productive work?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is attempting to tempt me into matters that I know are under discussion at the highest levels of Government at the moment around the policy that we should adopt on immigration, but I will not be drawn immediately in that direction.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Let me return to the record of the past 13 years. At various points in that time, there has been no shortage of people in this House and outside who have been very quick to predict an explosion in unemployment—whether that was when we were introducing the public spending restraint under the coalition Government or when we were coming out of the covid pandemic. Does not the fact that those predictions were wrong demonstrate two things? The first is the underlying resilience of the British economy and labour market, and the second is the success of the measures taken by numerous Ministers in his Department over the years always to make work pay and to make sure that our welfare system is reformed to encourage work incentives?
Mel Stride
As usual, my right hon. Friend makes characteristically insightful remarks about the UK economy, not least about unemployment, where he is right: the expectation during covid was that unemployment would rocket up to the kind of levels that we last saw in the 1980s. The fact that no such thing happened is a testament to many of the Ministers, as my right hon. Friend suggests, and not least to our current Prime Minister, who as Chancellor came forward with the furlough scheme and the support for business.
Our commitment to supporting the most vulnerable is clear, including in the substantial the Government have provided to help families with the cost of living. That includes the millions of cost of living payments, landing directly into the bank accounts of those on the lowest incomes, as well as to millions of pensioners and disabled people. Of course, one of the most important actions that we have taken to help families is to deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve inflation. A compassionate Government recognise that, for the poorest families, cost of living pressures remain, which is why we are increasing universal credit and other benefits by 6.7% from next April in line with September’s inflation figure.
A compassionate Government recognise that rising rents are affecting private renters on the lowest incomes, which is why we are increasing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local market rents from April next year. A compassionate Government back their pensioners, which is why we are honouring the triple lock, with an increase to the full state pension of 8.5 %. That is the second biggest ever increase, following last year’s increase of 10.1%.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State comment on the number of deaths that are anticipated, as I mentioned last week, due to elements of the policy proposals around forcing people into work, and taking their benefits off them if they are unable to fulfil that?
Mel Stride
I will come to benefit reform momentarily, but let me assure the hon. Lady—I know that this is a particular concern of hers, and she is right to be concerned about these matters—that my Department is extremely concerned to ensure that all changes in our benefit reforms are proportionate and are introduced in the most sympathetic and supportive way possible. Underlying those reforms, however, is a simple belief: we believe that where people want to work—where they have the ability to work—work is good for them. We want to open our door to as many people as possible, including many who are currently long-term sick and disabled, to give them exactly that opportunity.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Noting the good words from the Chancellor in favour of self-employment, and noting the national insurance measures to help, are there things that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing, or can do, so that self-employment is an option for people who are currently without work but who may have a lot to offer?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the self-employed and to the national insurance changes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement. Of course, my Department does a huge amount to support the self-employed. Many of our programmes are open to self-employed people to ensure that we are there to support them with the wages that they are able to bring home in self-employment, and we will continue to do exactly that.
A compassionate Government also need to be honest about the significant challenge that we face with the rising number of people leaving the labour market due to ill health or disability. Around 2.6 million people are currently off work with a long-term physical or, increasingly, mental health condition. Given the positive impact that work has, not just on finances but on health and wellbeing, there is a clear need to do more to help and encourage those people. In a tight labour market, with employers looking to fill nearly 1 million vacancies, there is also a wider economic imperative. Every time someone returns to work, they benefit and everyone benefits. It helps the economy to grow, debt to fall and inflation to decline still further.
Just as importantly, given the waste of human potential that inactivity often represents, there is a moral case to act. That is why, with the £2.5 billion-worth of investment over the next five years, our back to work plan will help thousands of disabled people and those with health conditions to stay in work, or if they fall out of it, to move quickly back with the right support. A key part of our approach is bringing together employment and health support, because we know that work and health go hand in hand.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that Access to Work schemes will be readily available, funded and put in place much more quickly than they are now?
Mel Stride
The Access to Work scheme is a fantastic scheme for encouraging those with disabilities to go into work. It is one of the reasons why disability employment is an area in which we have had so much success. In 2017, we set a 10-year target of getting 1 million more disabled people into work. We exceeded that target by 40% in just five years. Access to Work is part of that. The funding for Access to Work, as the hon. Lady will know, can exceed £60,000. It is an enormous commitment by a caring and compassionate Government to ensure that those who may need the assistance actually receive it.
That approach is at the heart of our new WorkWell service, which is integrating employment and health support at the local level. We will reform the fit note process to ensure that it is not a simple pass to sickness absence, but more of a prescription for the right support that is needed to keep someone close to work or to resume work after a period of illness. We are also doubling the number of placements available on our universal support programme, to help 100,000 people each year into roles, with up to 12 months of ongoing wraparound support to help ensure that they stay in work.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I applaud my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for bringing in all these new initiatives to make people get back to work. Grimsby has a higher unemployment rate than the national average, although it is coming down. Will he or one of his Ministers commit to meeting me to talk about what we can do to encourage more employers to become disability confident and to offer work placements to those people who are currently out of work, but are capable of getting back in to work?
Mel Stride
I know my hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for employment in her Great Grimsby constituency and I will indeed make sure that a Minister is available for the discussions she has sought.
Given that we know how important high-quality occupational health is for helping people with health conditions to stay in work, we will support businesses to develop voluntary minimum levels of intervention that employers can adopt to help to improve employee health.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is also introducing measures to reinforce our efforts to join up employment and health support by tackling one of the main reasons for sickness absence. Our expansion of access to mental health services will support almost 400,000 extra people through NHS talking therapies, and an additional 100,000 places will be made available through individual placement and support to help people who experience severe mental health conditions to start and stay in employment. With that significant expansion of extra support, we are breaking down the barriers that for too many have been a roadblock to the rewards of work. That requires bold reform.
Mel Stride
While the world of work has transformed significantly in recent years, the way we assess someone’s ability to work, or to prepare for work, has not changed for over a decade—not since the work capability assessment was last comprehensively reviewed in 2011. Since then, we have seen the rise of flexible working and new legislation giving workers the right to request it from day one of a new job. We have seen big increases in hybrid and home working, and there is a much greater understanding on the part of employers of the importance of reasonable adjustments and how to support disabled people in the workplace.
Mel Stride
Those changes have opened many more opportunities for disabled people and those with health conditions to participate in work, and for employers to benefit from their talents, but the fact is that too many people who could work are being denied access to those opportunities because they are deemed not fit to work or even to prepare for work. The proportion of people going through a work capability assessment and receiving the highest level of health-related benefits, where there is no requirement to look or prepare for work, rose from 21% in 2011 to 65% in 2022.
However, crucially, one in five in that group would like to work in the future with the right support, and more than half of those who felt that they could work within the next two years saw a fear of not being able to return to benefits as a barrier to work. With our new chance to work guarantee, we are removing that barrier and that fear for millions of disabled claimants who want to try work.
The reform will effectively abolish the work capability assessment for the vast majority of existing claimants who have already been assessed and do not have any work-related requirements. They will be free to do some work without the prospect of having to be reassessed and potentially losing their benefits if a job does not work out. It brings forward a major part of our longer-term plan, set out in the health and disability White Paper published earlier in the year, which will see the work capability assessment abolished completely.
In the meantime, for new claimants, we are ensuring that the work capability assessment is fit for the modern world of work and reflects the greater opportunities for disabled people. To that end, we are updating some of the criteria we use to assess whether someone can work or prepare for work, including the “mobilising” and “getting about” activities, as well as the substantial risk rules. Those reforms will come in from 2025, and it is important to emphasise that we will continue to protect the most vulnerable and those with the most significant limitations.
Mel Stride
The changes will help many more people who can work—who want to work—to gain all the benefits of a job. That is my mission. It is a mission that extends to helping anyone who falls out of work, for whatever reason, to get back into work quickly. It is a mission to ensure that a spell out of work does not turn into the scourge of long-term unemployment, because we know that the longer someone remains out of work, the harder it is for them to return. That is why we are ensuring that people who are deemed fit to look for work are put on a stronger path to employment, rather than being parked on benefits indefinitely.
Stella Creasy
Another scheme intended to help ensure that people can get back into work is the expansion of childcare. Last week’s report showed us that the Office for Budget Responsibility believes that the Government’s childcare reform will mean a reduction in welfare spending, and that the £5.2 billion pledged to childcare will need to be only £4.6 billion—a reduction of more than 10% in the funding available for childcare. We all agree that childcare will help people back into work, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to pledge on the record that the Government will put directly into childcare the full £5.2 billion that our constituents were promised in March?
Mel Stride
I was expecting a devastating, killer intervention, given how keen the hon. Lady was to intervene, but it never quite arrived. She will know that in the Budget, the Chancellor made a substantial investment—the hon. Lady mentioned the figure £5 billion—in childcare. In my Department that is huge, because it means that we will deal with the retrospective nature of the first month’s payment, and that the amount available to those wishing to take advantage of childcare will be increased by some 49%.
Through our back to work plan, we are phasing in more intensive support and more rigorous requirements on jobseekers much earlier in their claim. We are accelerating the point at which claimants are required to undergo a more intensive 12-month work-search regime, which will kick in six months, rather than nine months, after the start of a claim. Anyone who has not moved into work by the end of that will be required to accept a mandatory work placement or other intensive activity to improve their chances of employment.
For those who refuse that support, it is right that there should be consequences. If a claimant does not accept those new conditions without good reason, their universal credit claim will be closed. As a result, no claimant should reach 18 months of unemployment in receipt of their full benefits if they have not taken every reasonable step to comply with jobcentre support. We will back that up with closer monitoring to ensure that the rules are being followed, including by tracking claimants’ attendance at jobs fairs and at interviews organised by jobcentres. That will mean that work coaches have the information that they need to know whether claimants are meeting their commitments. As part of this more rigorous approach, we will continue looking at the impact of more intensive support at seven weeks into a claim being delivered through our additional jobcentre support.
These back to work reforms strike at the heart of the quid pro quo that defines the contract between the state and individual. We are saying, “The Government will provide you with the support you need to move into work, but if you fail to keep your side of the bargain—if you refuse to engage or ignore available job opportunities —we will stop your benefits.”
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I do not think that many people will object to the idea that those who can work should work, and that the Secretary of State’s measures to get people who are capable back into work should be adopted. However, he will be aware that the Work and Pensions Committee has recently been considering vulnerable people who are entitled to benefits but do not get them. What safeguards can he provide to guarantee that the health of people who are ill is not made worse by the pressure that some jobcentres will apply in trying to meet his targets?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. I have great respect for him, and I have appeared before the Select Committee and been cross-examined by him. He is right to raise those kinds of concerns. They are concerns that we think about on a daily basis in my Department, to make sure that we get it right.
The regime I am outlining is for people who have been intensively supported for 18 months during their job search, who are fit and able—so they are not the people the hon. Gentleman described—and who, when presented at that point with the opportunity for work, decline that work. I think most people up and down the country would feel that it is right that there are consequences at that point.
When it comes to those who cannot work—those who are long-term sick or have significant disabilities—I want more than anybody else, and as much as any other person in this House, whichever side they may be on, to make sure that, as a civilised society, we are there to support them, no questions asked. But we can only do that for the most vulnerable in our society if we have a fair system that carries the support of the general public and can fund itself in the way we need it to.
Our back to work plan is about putting fairness at the heart of our welfare system: fairness for claimants who play by the rules and try their best, and fairness for taxpayers who contribute to the system. Contrast that with the Opposition, who have no plan. The only serious proposal they have for welfare reform is to water down benefit claimants’ requirements to work, which could cost £2 billion. That is not just reckless but unfair. It is no wonder that Labour has never left office with unemployment lower than when it entered it. It is no wonder that under Labour, youth unemployment rose by over 40%, unemployment increased by over 1 million, and more than 1 million people were left to languish on out-of-work benefits for almost a decade. That was not a record in office; it was a national disgrace. On Labour’s watch, countless lives were left to ruin.
The puddle of nihilism that is the Opposition Front Bench has no plan. Labour Front Benchers carp and vacillate from the sidelines, suck their teeth and dither, transfixed on the one hand by the fairer approach that they know in their heart the public demand, but frightened stiff on the other hand by the rank and file behind them. Is the truth not rather simple, Mr Deputy Speaker? They have no plan because compassion demands courage, and by their omissions they tell us that they have neither. This autumn statement protects the poorest and most in need, rewards work by cutting taxes and increasing pay, and takes the long-term decisions on welfare reform by helping people into work, growing the economy and changing lives.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
My constituent David has a 30-year-old son with autism and severe obsessive compulsive disorder. David says that despite all the challenges his son faces, he has recently moved into independent living and is working really hard to try to find a job. David’s son has lots of skills, especially in computing and research, but because of his autism and, particularly, his OCD, he needs an employer who understands his conditions and will give him a real chance and offer him the work flexibility that someone in his situation needs. He is doing everything he possibly can to find work. He recently applied for a job at Tesco and was really pleased to get an interview, but because the job required a lot of overtime and there are limits on how many hours he can take because he is on employment and support allowance, he could not take up the offer.
This is the reality facing many sick and disabled people across Britain today. They want to work not just for the money, but for the sense of purpose, dignity, independence and self-respect that work brings. They deserve a Government who back their efforts and aspirations and who will tear down the barriers to their success, but under this Government nothing could be further from the truth.
The last few weeks have seen the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Work and Pensions Secretary railing against the soaring numbers of people out of work due to long-term sickness. It is as if, after 13 long years, this has nothing to do with them, but these problems have happened on their watch and they only have themselves to blame. Britain remains the only country in the G7 where the employment rate still has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, and 2.6 million people are now shut out of work due to long-term sickness, which is the highest number since records began. What do the Government expect when they have driven the NHS into the ground and let waiting lists soar to 7.8 million, and when social care has been forced to its knees?
And what is the result? There are more and more people over 50 out of work due to long-term sickness, with people struggling with bad hips, knees and joints left stranded on NHS waiting lists and waiting for treatment in discomfort and pain. Many of them are women who are trying to care for their elderly parents or other sick and disabled relatives at the same time, with precious little help from an unreformed social care system after 13 years of this Government.
The number of young people out of work due to long-term sickness has doubled over the last decade and now stands at more than 230,000. Much of that is driven by mental health problems, but it is compounded if such a young person lacks basic qualifications and lives in a part of the country—often a town or coastal area outside our large cities—that is struggling economically.
We know from brutal experience the terrible consequences that long-term youth unemployment brings, and all these problems are far worse in poorer parts of the country. The grim reality is that someone is twice as likely to be out of work due to ill health if they live in the most deprived fifth of areas in England than if they live in the least deprived fifth, with rates of worklessness due to long-term sickness among the over-50s rising three times faster in the north of England than in the south.
This is the reality of Conservative Britain, and it is such an unforgivable waste. It is a waste of individual talent and potential when millions of people who want to work are written off because they cannot get the support they need to get back on their feet. It is a waste for British businesses, which desperately need to recruit staff and use the skills and experience of everyone in our country to thrive and succeed. It is an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money too, with taxpayers paying an extra £15.7 billion a year in higher benefit bills and lost tax revenues compared with before the pandemic.
What are Ministers proposing to deal with a problem so serious that the OBR says it is a significant risk to fiscal sustainability, driving higher taxes and weakening our growth prospects? We heard a lot last week about how more sick and disabled people can work from home. Let us put to one side that, barely 18 months ago, the last Prime Minister but one, the then right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, said that working from home does not work, and the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) claimed that homeworking reduced productivity and led to higher taxes. I am a strong supporter of home and hybrid working but the reality is that by far the highest levels of homeworking are among people earning £50,000 a year or more. Two thirds of people who work from home have a university degree, compared with only around one in 10 of those with no qualifications. Did we hear anything from the Government about getting sick and disabled people the degrees and professional qualifications they need to secure these high-paid work-from-home jobs, or about how to get the internet access, computers, home adaptation aids and other support that they need, given that so many disabled people are living in poverty? We did not.
Instead, as I am afraid the Secretary of State repeated today, we heard a rehash of old plans that would not be needed if they had worked in the first place, and of measures so inadequate, unambitious and ineffective that they will fail to tackle the root causes of worklessness and get Britain working again.
The much-lauded reforms to fit notes and the new “expert group” on occupational health to drive improvements in employee health at work were both announced six years ago, in the “Improving lives” strategy that the Chancellor published when was he was Health Secretary back in 2017. The new mandatory work placements were first announced back in 2011, when the Government said jobseekers who need initial support to get back to work can be referred on to mandatory four-week work placements. I am all in favour of work placements and better occupational health, which I have campaigned for in my constituency for years, but reannouncing old programmes that clearly have not worked is not a plan for success.
As for the Government’s changes to the work capability assessment, Labour has been warning for years that benefit assessments are not fit for purpose and should be replaced with a simpler, clearer system that gets decisions right the first time and focuses on what people can do, not just what they cannot, as part of much wider reforms that give practical help and support to get people into work and to stay in work. But that is not what the Government are proposing and their plans are not a recipe for success.
That is not just my assessment, or the assessment of disabled people’s organisations and charities; it is what the Office for Budget Responsibility says in its response to the autumn statement. A reasonable person might think that the results of a successful back to work plan would probably start with fewer people out of work due to long-term sickness and disability, but that is not what the Government’s plans achieve: the OBR says that 600,000 more people will be on sickness and disability benefits after the Government’s plans. Might we expect a higher overall employment rate? Sorry, wrong again: the OBR forecasts that this will remain static at just 60.6%. What about lower spending on sickness and disability benefits overall? I am afraid we would be wrong again; the OBR says that spending on sickness and disability benefits will increase by a staggering £33 billion over the forecast period—that is up by a whopping 75%. That is the result of the Government’s plans.
Britain desperately needs an alternative plan to get Britain working again, and that is what Labour will deliver. Our top priority will be ensuring that everyone who can work, does, because rights to taxpayer support must go hand in hand with the responsibility to take up work and training when they are offered. Conditions have always been part of the social security system since the original Beveridge report, and under Labour that will always remain the case. But Beveridge also said that the state has a responsibility to do everything within its power to help people get back on their feet, including through an NHS that focuses as much on prevention and rehabilitation as on cure, and an economy that delivers full and productive employment across the country. That is why Labour’s fully costed, fully funded plan will tackle the root causes of worklessness, drive down NHS waiting lists, overhaul jobcentres, transform skills, reform social security and make work pay.
That starts with our long-term plan for the NHS, because we know that a healthy nation is the key to a healthy economy. We will invest an extra £1.1 billion a year, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status, to provide 2 million more NHS appointments and clear the NHS backlog. We will recruit 8,500 more mental health staff, with support in every school and in every community to tackle mental health problems early on, paid for by closing private equity bonus loopholes, because when half of all serious mental illness starts before the age of 18, we have to get that help and support early on.
We will go further still. We will overhaul jobcentres, so that they provide personalised help tailored to individual needs—not the one-size-fits-all approach that drives too much of what the Government do. Jobcentres will also have new duties to work in partnership with the local NHS, employers and others. There will be a new focus on helping people to progress out of low pay, because we do not just want people to get a job; we want them to get on in their job and to use their talents and skills to the full. That is crucial to improving productivity and putting money in people’s pockets.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady has substantially described our plan. What she has not said is whether she supports it. Does she support our plan?
Liz Kendall
I do not support a plan that leads to £33 billion more spending at the end of the forecast period and 600,000 more people on sickness and disability benefits because the Government have failed to tackle the root causes of worklessness or to put a proper plan in place. I know that the Secretary of State is desperate to say that people on the Opposition Benches do not support conditions or the requirement to work, but work is our party’s name. We believe that the benefits of work go beyond a payslip to the dignity and self-respect that good work brings. We will devolve employment support, so that it works for local issues and local needs, because the man, or even woman, in Whitehall can never know what is best in Leicester, Liverpool or Leeds.
Instead of demonising disabled people, we will put in place a proper plan to ensure that those who can work, do. Our “into work guarantee”, backed by the Centre for Social Justice and the Social Security Advisory Committee, will provide real incentives for sick and disabled people, allowing them to try work without fear of losing their benefits if things go wrong. It seems that the Government have finally nicked our proposals, just as they did with our NHS workforce plan. I have no idea what took them so long. Unlike the Government, however, who have let waits for Access to Work support soar, we will drive those waits down so that people can get the adaptations, equipment, travel and other support when they need it, rather than having to wait for weeks on end.
That is not all. Our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity will overhaul skills, so that no one is ever written off, whatever their age, including with new technical excellence colleges and by reforming apprenticeships. We will make work pay with a real living wage and by banning zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire. We will help parents balance work and family life with breakfast clubs in every primary school and more rights to flexible working through our new deal for working people.
Above all, our driving mission in government that will drive everything we do will be getting growth across every part of our country, because that is the key to our future success. We will get Britain building again by overhauling planning with ambitious new housing targets and first dibs for first-time buyers. We will get Britain investing again, providing the long-term certainty and stability that businesses need, which have been so fatally undermined by this Government. With our national wealth fund, we will leverage private sector investment to create the jobs of the future and make Britain a clean energy superpower. We will get Britain innovating again with our modern industrial strategy and plans to make this country the best place to start up and grow a business.
This autumn statement, hot on the heels of the damp squib of a King’s Speech, proved—if proof were ever necessary—that after 13 long years, the Government have run out of road and run out of ideas. Conservative voters, and even Conservative Members, could be forgiven for wondering what on earth their party is for. They say that they are the party of lower taxes, but the tax burden is the highest for 70 years, and working families are paying £4,000 a year more in taxes in this Parliament alone. They promised to take back control of our borders and stop the boats, but so far this year 27,000 people have arrived on small boats this year, their flagship Rwanda policy is in tatters, and, at 745,000, net migration is the highest recorded in history.
The Conservatives claim to be the party of home ownership, but home ownership has fallen under this Government, with couples now having to spend on average a decade saving for their first deposit, up from only three years under Margaret Thatcher. The armed forces have been cut and cut again, with the Army now employing a third fewer troops than it did in 2010, despite all the risks and threats that we face. Our criminal justice system is on its knees, with violent crime rising, court backlogs soaring and judges being told not to jail convicted criminals because the Tories have failed to build enough prisons. So much for being the party of law and order. That is before we even consider the dire state of our public services, where our schools are literally crumbling, patients are left dying in ambulances, and local government is on its knees.
Britain deserves so much better than this. I know from talking to people across the country, from Hastings to Erewash and from Swindon to Selby, that they are desperate for change, but the Conservatives cannot be the change from 13 years of their own failure. Under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we have changed the Labour party, and we stand ready to change the country. Let us have a general election, and let us have it now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call John Redwood to speak, I inform the House that I apologise that I was absent at the beginning of today’s sitting due to a change in flight times after spending the last 30 hours meeting my counterparts in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories following the devastating crisis in Israel and Gaza. I thank my counterparts for meeting me at this sad and difficult time.
My advice for Back Benchers is to take up to eight minutes. If we can try to work to that, we will get everybody in on the same basis.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have my business interests declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Underneath the exchanges of words, I welcome the outbreak of agreement, given that the Labour party now strongly supports the idea of helping more people into work. I suspect that the Opposition will not vote against the main items in the autumn statement because they understand that the Government have had success in keeping so many people in work and promoting employment over the years, despite some extremely difficult situations. They also understand that that is an important thing for a responsible Government to do, and not just to get the benefit bill down. As Labour has eloquently said, life can be so much more worth while when people have suitable work, suitably supported, that gives them a sense of purpose and of contributing to their communities.
I wish to draw brief attention to the issue of getting inflation under control and the inadequacy of forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England. It is extremely difficult for Ministers to conduct consistent policy when the forecasts are zinging around so much and giving different and often misleading ideas of what is feasible and what is not. I welcome the other place’s most recent report on the Bank of England, which highlights how the Bank has been unable to come up with realistic inflation reports over the last three years and has therefore taken inappropriate action. First, it loosened monetary policy in the covid recovery phase, and now its monetary policy is too tight as it seeks to adjust its past mistakes. I hope that the Bernanke review will get on with the important task of adjusting the Bank’s models and coming up with a better answer to help guide our counsels, and particularly those of our Ministers.
I find it odd that we have a Monetary Policy Committee that is not interested in money and credit. As the other place’s report suggests, perhaps it should look at putting money and credit into its thinking—more diversity of thought is recommended—and into the models to try to get them to work. What is the point of the committee sitting around trying to make decisions if the main data it is using—namely, what it thinks the inflation rate will be—can be massively out? It thought that the inflation rate would stay at a pretty consistent 2%, when it was en route to 11%. That was why, for many months, the Monetary Policy Committee did not take appropriate action to rein in potential inflation. Now it is pretty sure that inflation will come under control, but it still has had difficulties and is constantly having to change its inflation forecasts in the meantime, as has the OBR.
The review rightly points out that when looking at money and credit in the economy, we need to look at the experience elsewhere in the world. Of the five most important central banks of the world, including the Bank of England, those in Asia have lived through exactly the same big escalation in food and energy prices as a result of the dreadful war in Ukraine. The two major central bank economies in Asia are very vulnerable, because they import a lot of food and energy, but their inflation stayed around 2%, whereas the three western central banks, including the Bank of England, took much more aggressive monetary action, printing a lot of money and buying an awful lot of bonds, and experienced the inflation rate going up to around 10%. They should pause and ask why.
The review also rightly says that the Bank of England should be more accountable to Parliament—not to the Government, in any way to prejudice its independence—because it is in the process of losing us the most colossal sums of money. Successive Chancellors have guaranteed the Bank of England against all losses from their bond buying programmes, which started under Labour at the end of the first decade of the century and were escalated by the current Government in response to covid. We are now looking at a possible loss of £170 billion, based on the latest figures that it has revealed. Every penny of that has to be paid by the Treasury on behalf of taxpayers as and when it is incurred.
There is absolutely no need for the Bank of England to make those losses bigger and more immediate by wading into the markets at the moment and selling those bonds in a hurry, at very depressed prices—prices that the Bank has deliberately depressed in order to get interest rates higher. It could follow the European Central Bank, which wisely is not selling its bonds at a loss in the market but is awaiting their retirement when they fall due for repayment, when the losses will be less but it can still shrink the balance sheet, which is the main thing it wishes to do.
I hope the Government will look at that, because it has always been a dual-controlled policy: the bond buying required the signatures of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. It is a matter of legitimate concern for this House when the losses are so colossal, and there is a direct impact on all public expenditure figures, public borrowing and so forth, excluding the Bank of England. As many in the debate will know, we look at the figures both cum the Bank the England and ex the Bank of England. The ex the Bank of England figures look very poor indeed.
I welcome measures in the autumn statement to promote more growth, which is crucial. The way to get inflation down faster is to promote more capacity, so any measure that gets us more capacity is welcome. That is why I am particularly keen that we be much kinder to the self-employed and small businesses. They can do more work immediately, but some of the tax penalties still weigh on them, preventing them from getting self-employed status or winning contracts, or preventing small businesses from growing quickly enough. I repeat my urging for Ministers to look at that: more capacity would be the best way to get inflation down.
I will put in one final plea to Ministers to find some money to cut the taxes on energy. They are making us extremely uncompetitive and are keeping inflation higher for longer. It would be a win-win to get some of the taxes on energy down.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Against a pretty horrendous economic backdrop, it was with bated breath and no little trepidation that we on the SNP Benches waited to see what the Chancellor would drop. The backdrop is certainly about as far removed as anyone could ever have hoped it would have been going into such a crucial period. Not only is GDP per capita still not above 2019 pre-pandemic levels, but the UK is expected to suffer the biggest fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s. Most people are expected to be worse off in 2027 than they were in 2019. Real incomes are also expected to be lower in 2027 than they were in 2019. A typical household will be worse off by approximately £694 per annum by 2027-28 as a result of the policies of this Conservative Government who are so adamant, in the face of all outcomes and facts, that they get the big decisions right. That is certainly not borne out by the outlook for the economy under their stewardship.
Sadly, there was nothing at all in the Chancellor’s statement that offered any kind of meaningful change for the millions of people in Scotland and elsewhere who are really struggling right now against that economic backdrop. Last week’s announcements were a clear reminder for people in Scotland, if any were needed, that we cannot hope to build a fair, dynamic economy while being tied to UK Governments who, through their actions, do not reflect the preferences, choices or values that people consistently express at the ballot box when they go to vote.
On the statement, there is the old proverb about the couple who stop for directions and are told, rather unhelpfully, “I wouldn’t be starting from here.” Let us not be in any doubt: we certainly would not wish to be starting from here. We would not wish to be labouring with the aftermath of Brexit, which has permanently given the UK economy the effect of trying to drive a car with the handbrake wedged firmly on. We certainly would not be coming off the back of the catastrophic Budget driven by the right hon. Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), which blew up the economy. Despite that, and in spite of everything, the Chancellor did have slightly more headroom—about £20 billion—than had been forecast. The question was: how would he seek to put that to work?
I will start with the few positives I can find. The uplifting of benefits by 6.7% in line with the higher rate of inflation really is the least the Chancellor could have done. It will still leave too many people struggling and wondering how they are going to pay their bills. It was the very least that should have been done on uplifting the rate. Uplifting the local housing allowance was important. My party called for, and we welcome, allowing rates of housing benefit to be paid at rates that more closely match where the market actually is. A freeze in whisky duty certainly does not undo the damage of the spring Budget, where a 10.1% levy was whacked on the spirit, but at least it makes things no worse.
If the House will permit me, I would like to take the opportunity, while I have a captive audience on the Treasury Bench, to explain why whisky duty matters. The Scotch whisky industry supports 10,000 jobs in Scotland and 42,000 jobs across the whole of the UK. It also represents 25% of total UK food and drink exports. One would think that this is an industry that the Government would want to look after, nurture, take care of and give every possible opportunity to succeed. The level of duty affects domestic consumption and also affects the investment that goes into supporting those jobs. But here’s the rub: it also impacts how other jurisdictions in key markets, particularly the Asian markets, react, because many of them take their cue from the level of duty set by the UK Government. If they see the UK Government setting a rate of duty where there is a gigantic differential between indigenous spirits such as Scotch whisky and other drinks in the market, then they have absolutely no qualms about following suit. That depresses potential sales in key emerging markets and reduces the opportunities we have to drive growth and innovation in that key sector at home.
As for the bigger picture, nothing in the Chancellor’s statement offered meaningful change to the millions of people out there who are suffering at the moment. What the statement did offer was a clear reminder that, as I have said, the key powers over the commanding heights of the economy will do nothing for Scotland while they continue to remain under the control of Governments who do not share the values that people vote for. Sadly, as the soaring cost of household bills outpaces the limited help that was on offer in the statement, the reality is that what was offered is far too little, coming far too late for the squeezed majority of households.
The SNP set what I thought were some pretty basic fundamental tests for the statement: a relatively small number of asks that could nevertheless have made a big difference. We asked for a £400 energy rebate, something that the UK Government have sadly failed to provide although energy bills continue to be roughly double what they were in 2021—and moreover, the day after the statement the energy price cap was increased by a further 5%. We challenged the UK Government to match the council tax freeze by the SNP Government in Edinburgh, which will put a disproportionately high amount of money into the pockets of the lowest earners. We also challenged them to match the game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 a week, another measure that is putting thousands of pounds into the pockets of those who need it most. That payment was highlighted in a recent blog by the London School of Economics as one of the key reasons why the level of child poverty in Scotland—although far too high—is still significantly lower than it is in any other part of the UK.
The UK Government could also have given some respite to hard-pressed homeowners, many of whom are looking down the barrel of significant increases in their mortgage payments as a result of higher interest rates. They could have done that by introducing mortgage interest rate relief, but they chose not to do so.
For my part of Scotland, the north-east, we challenged the UK Government to match what the Scottish Government are doing in kick-starting the energy revolution, the green transition that we need—to match the £500 million set aside purely for the north-east—but we got nothing, although we know how crucial that energy transition is to ensuring fairness, retaining human capital and prosperity, and delivering the changes that not only our economy but our planet needs.
We are invited to believe that the goal of the statement was growth. Let me draw attention to two key areas in which the UK Government have, in my view, been found to be badly wanting. The first is capital spending. There are obviously pressures to maintain existing assets, as we all know from the emergence of the problems that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete has caused in many public sector buildings constructed over the past 40 years. We can see the waste caused by overspending: the horrendous waste of money represented by some of the stations in central London on the Elizabeth line, a railway that did go ahead, and by the cancellation of HS2 and the bits of that line that did not go ahead. However, we need to recognise the importance not just of private sector capital expenditure, but of the key driving, galvanising force that capital expenditure from the Government and the public sector can have. It drives and encourages investment from the private sector, and, crucially, it increases the productive capacity of each and every one of us. It is therefore unfathomable that the UK Government should cut the Scottish Government’s capital budget by 6.7% between 2023-24 and 2027-28—a figure that will potentially become even higher if inflation persists at its current levels—all the while refusing to devolve long-term borrowing powers.
Secondly, there is a persistent negative when it comes to research and development. There are parts of the UK that punch pretty well above their weight in that regard, most obviously the south-east of England and London but also Scotland. However, there are other parts, such as the regions of England and also Wales, where R&D spending is significantly below the share of GDP, and also below the share of the population that might be expected to be able to attract it. Beyond that, the UK’s investment in research and development consistently lags that of EU competitors such as France and Germany, which is a major drag on long-term growth and economic opportunities for all our constituents.
Looking through the additional spends and revenues forgone as a result of the statement, it seems to me—I am happy to be proved wrong—that the Government are committing more to returning full business rates to the combined authorities in Greater Manchester and the west midlands than they are to research and development or anything that might drive that forward. Lest anyone assail me, I have absolutely no grudge against the west midlands of England or the Greater Manchester combined authority—more power to them! I do not know whether the Greater Manchester combined authority extends to Chorley, Mr Speaker—
Richard Thomson
Perhaps some reflected benefit will come through. Those authorities are entitled to every penny that they can get back from this Government, and I wish them well in that endeavour, but it pales in comparison with the strategic importance of research and development, in policy terms and numerically. Until the Government get to grips with the long-term lack of investment in our public sector, our human capital, our physical capital and our R&D, we can expect the country to lag behind.
It is no secret that I come here as a supporter of Scottish independence. I would dearly love to see Governments in Scotland being able to make their own budgets, constrained only by the limits of their own resources, their own choices, their own imaginations and their own political mandates, and with restrictions placed on them by nowhere else. But until that day comes, we are stuck with what this Government and potential UK Governments come forward with, which, I have to say, we find badly wanting.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The House, on both sides, wants to get Britain growing, and that is a great statement of intent. I am delighted that the Opposition parties agree with the Government and the Conservative party on that. I hope they will also agree that it is important that people keep more of what they earn, because they have earned it, they deserve it and that is how we will create the right work incentives to grow the economy in the years ahead. I want to put on record my support for the changes to national insurance, which will be a really important step in delivering exactly that. The fact that 27 million people will be getting a tax cut and that someone employed on a wage of £35,000 will be £450 better off is an excellent step in the right direction, and I hope there will be more to come.
I also welcome the changes for the self-employed, because it is crucial that we focus not only on those employed in large businesses but on those who work for themselves. They are the strivers who get up every morning looking for new opportunities, not only for themselves but for their families and for our wider economy. It is also important for both groups, whether they are employed or self-employed, that there is fairness in the system, and that is why it is right that welfare is looked at again. It is important that this country has a safety net. Across the House, everyone agrees with that simple premise. Those who fall on hard times, those who find themselves in difficulties and those who have particular needs that mean they cannot work at a point in their life deserve our support, and I know that the country is with us on that. But those who do not seek work are the people that the Government are rightly looking at again. I know that the people out there who we work for, the people who pay taxes, are on the Government’s side as we ensure that those who do not seek work are not provided with the support of generous taxpayers across this country.
I also give credit to the Government for the abolition of the lifetime allowance, which was announced earlier than the autumn statement. Again, this is an important statement of intent because it creates the right incentives for people to be able to work in this country. That includes people who want to work longer, given that our health is consistently better and that we can work well into what was traditionally seen as retirement. By seeking to reverse the change, the Labour party is wrong. It would price out—tax out—doctors, policemen and teachers from public service at their peak. Labour’s plan to restore the lifetime allowance would cripple those who want to continue working and contributing to our economy and society, which is something that we should be welcoming; I certainly do.
I said that I hope this is a starting point and that the Government will go further—I believe it is crucial that they do. Although childcare is an important issue for many people in this country, family-friendly taxation is arguably more important. Many people choose to use informal forms of childcare, and many people want to spend more time with their children during their early years. Indeed, 74% of women polled say that they want to spend more time with their children, particularly before they start school, and two thirds want to spend all their time with their children before they start school, but they cannot because the support is not there in the tax system. That makes us an outlier—families are taxed about 26% more in this country than in our OECD counterparts. It is a question of fairness. Individuals pay less tax than the OECD average, but families pay more. I hope the Government will look at that in the months ahead. Indeed, I hope they will look at the excellent report from the Centre for Policy Studies, to which I happened to contribute, outlining some of the options.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), talked about the squeezed middle. It is crucial that tax thresholds—particularly the 40p threshold—are reviewed. It is wrong of the SNP to say that it is here in defence of the squeezed middle, when the squeezed middle are the ones being taxed the hardest north of the border.
We must go further, too, to prove that we are different from the SNP, and that we recognise that people who strive to progress in their career, who strive to earn more money, should be rewarded. I am led to believe that, had the 40p threshold remained index-linked from the time of Nigel Lawson, it would now be in the order of £80,000, so there is much further to go to make sure the threshold does not affect police sergeants, teachers with 10 years’ experience and the like. That was not its intended purpose. Again, if we are keen to make work pay, and if we are keen to create the right incentives in our economy for people to try to secure more hours, to secure a promotion or to set up their own business, we need to make sure the tax system reflects that.
In addition, those who have done the right thing all their lives by saving hard and putting their hard-earned money into their family home should not be penalised. It is crucial that the Government look again at lifting the inheritance tax threshold from £325,000 to perhaps £1 million, as was proposed by the former Chancellor, George Osborne, in 2007. This would simply do what the Conservative party says it has always wanted to do, and I hope the Front Bench will look at that in the months ahead.
I am conscious of time, so I will move on to spending reductions and capital receipts. When the Government cancelled High Speed 2, I wonder whether they considered privatising the operation, rather than selling off the land piecemeal. There is an opportunity here to build infrastructure for the future, but for the private sector to do it and for the Government to get a capital receipt now. I hope the Government would welcome that, because it is wrong to stymie infrastructure for the future, but it is right that taxpayers’ money is best spent on road projects across this country.
There is a huge amount of spending across Government. One example is in the Department for Transport, where a huge amount of money is being spent on so-called active travel. This is the left getting what it wants, which is everyone moving from their own private transport into Government-controlled transport, or being forced to walk or cycle in 15-minute neighbourhoods. That is not what the people of this country want. They do not want blanket 20 mph speed limits, so those are the sorts of cuts we should seek.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to make my maiden speech in this debate on the autumn statement.
For many people, the primary concern is how they will get through to the end of the month. Pockets are empty, cupboards are bare and many are filled with despair. I must apologise, for I know a maiden speech should start with a more uplifting tone, but I would be remiss, in my place on these green Benches, if I forgot to be a voice for my constituents and simply glossed over the crisis in which they find themselves.
It is only right that I pay tribute to the many community organisations that have stitched together the supportive fabric that many now rely upon and the threads that hold it together, such as Heart of Tamworth, whose hub provides a solace from that despair, whether it be through the dementia café or the food pantry. Like a quilt, it always has a warm welcome.
The people of Tamworth and the villages voted for a prosperous future and for change, and it is to my constituents that I turn first. I thank them for placing their trust in me to restore their voice in this House. I am immensely proud to represent the great constituency of Tamworth, complete with its spectacular villages, and I will endeavour to champion the issues that matter to my constituents at every opportunity.
I am proud to be Tamworth’s first female MP. Women have been able to stand for Parliament only since 1918. To date, just 563 female MPs—not even amounting to a full House—have been elected. That sets my recent by-election victory, with the second largest swing since 1945, in an even starker light, making me even prouder to have been elected against the odds. I draw a parallel with my predecessor Brian Jenkins who, also as a by-election candidate, was elected against the odds in 1996. I am grateful to him for his support during my campaign.
I was elected with the knowledge that Tamworth boasts a unique history, having been fortified in 913 with the building of Tamworth castle by Æthelflæd, the lady of the Mercians, whose leadership legacy left behind that stunning heritage asset adored by the town and visitors alike. Our sense of identity is rooted in the stories of the past, and the historic market town of Tamworth is proud of its medieval heritage. With my own passion for heritage, the honour of representing a place with so much tangible heritage is hard to articulate, but I intend to find creative ways to support the regeneration of Tamworth through its priceless heritage and, in particular, its high street, which so many people have told me needs regenerating. People like Sam, a female entrepreneur who runs Roasters, which has been a staple part of the high street for more than 30 years, ensuring that people can always get a hot pork sandwich, complete with the crackliest, crackly crackling they will ever crunch. Or women like Sarah, who runs Christopher’s and provides the town with a gorgeous boutique hotel and restaurant. She kept the business going despite the turmoil that faced hospitality during the pandemic.
The Tamworth Co-operative Society is still an integral part of the town and has featured greatly in its development. Founded by philanthropist and social entrepreneur William MacGregor in 1886, it championed, above all else, fair prices and quality products for the poor and working classes, flying in the face of the profiteering shopkeepers of the time.
As a parliamentarian, it is also important to be humble and not to brag about my constituency, so I will refrain from telling the House that we are also home to the Tamworth Tap, which this year was named by the Campaign for Real Ale as the country’s best pub.
But a high street cannot flourish without people visiting and feeling safe. Concern about antisocial behaviour and a desire to have a closer relationship with local police has made my constituents feel that their town centre needs more visible policing. It is for this reason that I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor Sir Robert Peel, the distinguished parliamentarian and first leader of the Conservative party, who was known for his commitment to his country first and his party second. He was a visionary who sought to improve the social system that supported communities, establishing the Metropolitan police on the principles of policing by consent and its place within the community. The well-known principle that the police are the public and the public are the police is still, to this day, what makes policing in this country stand apart from that in many others.
It is therefore all the more troubling that Tamworth no longer has a police station with a front desk or custody cells, and my constituents have raised with me their concerns over antisocial behaviour and safety within their communities. Policing should have a community focus and should be accessible; it should give people the sense that the police reflect them and their needs. That is why I campaign to have a front desk reopened in Tamworth and for the re-establishment of community policing.
The communities I serve include incredible villages such as Elford, Edingale, Whittington, Drayton Bassett and Shenstone, whose community library boasts an incredible programme of activities and a rather fancy coffee machine that is such a repeat draw that it has almost single-handedly stamped out late returns.
Colleagues will know that I am a devoted dog owner and, as a former Crufts competitor, I have set my sights on the much-coveted, highest political accolade: Westminster dog of the year. Tamworth is a proud dog owning constituency, and I met many along the campaign trail, including little Reggie the lost Pomeranian. Estimates by campaign colleagues who were out door knocking put Tamworth dog ownership at approximately 100%, although I am sure the House of Commons Library would rightly disagree with such a loose application of anecdotal evidence.
In conclusion, Tamworth has a rich, strong history, and my constituents are rightly proud of it. However, reflecting on the current cost of living crisis and the desire for the opportunity to live a life less burdened, they rightly want where they live, and the community they are part of, to thrive. The people of Tamworth voted for a fresh start and a positive vision for their town and villages. During the campaign, they were clear in setting out their priorities for change, and having spent over a decade giving working people a voice in the workplace, I intend to be their voice and champion in the constituency and here at Westminster. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Let me welcome you back from your important visit, Mr Speaker, and begin by welcoming the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). She will find this to be quite a robust, feisty place, where perhaps courtesy is not what it should be, but we should commend an exemplary maiden speech and wish her all the best in her parliamentary career.
I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, for this important opportunity to comment on the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Government’s update on the health of the nation’s finances. Members in all parts of the House have recognised that the backdrop to any discussion about our economy would not be complete without recognising the unprecedented, seismic events that have impacted the nation’s finances over the past few years: covid and the Ukraine conflict. Those once-in-a-generation events would have tested any Government, whoever was in power, as indeed they have tested Governments across Europe and beyond. Looking at how we compare with other nations puts the challenges we have experienced in perspective. In 2022, all but one of the G7 nations experienced higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the UK, so we have stabilised the nation’s finances.
It is time to move forward and grow our economy. It is time to take advantage of the welcome fiscal headroom to increase UK productivity; to continue to tackle the cost of living crisis by helping more people back into work; and to map out a clear economic vision for the future. I am sure that reducing national insurance, increasing benefit payments, along with the national minimum wage, and advancing the state pension are changes that will be welcomed, not just by the public but by Labour.
I say to the Minister that I was hoping for more support for the tourism and hospitality industry. The value of tourism to Britain is too often overlooked. It is worth £140 billion to our economy, it accounts for 6% of our GDP and 11% of our workforce are employed in this important sector. I welcome the continued extension of the 75% rate relief for hospitality, but I would like us to go further, with a permanent reduction in VAT for tourism. We saw that briefly during the covid crisis. I know that the discussion is taking place and perhaps—please—we will see that measure come out of the hat in next year’s spring statement. Tourism is vital to our economy and to Bournemouth, so reducing VAT in the tourism and hospitality sector is something I hope Ministers will consider.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is that the OBR’s forecasting never gives any credit for cutting a tax rate in order to get more revenue? This could be a good example of where that would work.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Centre for Economics and Business Research suggests that there is £10 billion to be made in lost GDP at the moment, as we are not attracting overseas visitors because our taxes are higher than those of our continental counterparts.
Looking at the bigger picture, finances certainly remain tight. The national debt, although falling as a percentage of GDP, as I said, remains too high. Our growth, although larger than Germany’s, is not where it should be. Given that we are the sixth largest economy in the world, we need to look at improving productivity, which remains sluggish, as it has been since 2008. A lot of these economic debates focus, understandably, on the micro level—the line-by-line budget allocations to Whitehall Departments, and the changes to general taxation, benefits and pensions—but how all those fiscal jigsaw pieces fit together is often overlooked. Our world is changing fast. Not only is it becoming more internationally competitive, but there is a question mark as to what our role actually is. I am reminded of what John Foster Dulles, the former US Secretary of State, said:
“Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role.”
What we saw in the autumn statement was interesting indeed. The world is going digital, as IT changes every aspect of our lives: how we communicate, travel, do business and even strengthen our own security. That is all good news for the UK, as we have the third largest tech sector in the world, after the US and China. We are world leaders in pharmaceuticals, life sciences, creative industries, aerospace, fintech and artificial intelligence. With some of the best universities in the world, along with our globally recognised finance sector, we are well placed to become a high-tech superpower—another silicon valley. That is also good news for Bournemouth, because that is exactly where our area focuses; we are focused not just on tourism and financial services, but on the creative industries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for what he says about the pharmaceutical and engineering sectors, as we have businesses in those areas in my constituency that can do well. One thing that is needed to improve it is reviewing and increasing the child benefit thresholds—perhaps the Government should consider that. It would enable families that work hard to get more benefit, which they cannot do at this moment in time.
Mr Ellwood
In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that I 100% agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
I began by mentioning the global shocks of covid and Ukraine, and placing them in context. There is clearly a direct correlation between our economy and our security. About half of our GDP is affected by international headwinds. For those of us who follow international events, it is clear that there will be more covids and more Ukraine-sized conflicts. Our world is becoming more dangerous, not less. These threats are growing and becoming more complex and dynamic. There is an increasing blurring, with the scale of direct military threats being matched by those in the economy and, specifically, in the digital space. With authoritarianism on the rise, we have entered an ever-uncertain era of insecurity, akin to the 1930s, with rising populism, new and dangerous alliances forming, increased threats to our international rules-based order and our international institutions unable to hold errant nations to account. This is all causing a number of alarm bells to ring on the global order dashboard. Arguably, the situation is even more grave than the one in the 1930s, because we also face climate change, cyber threats and the pervasive role of the non-state actor in that equation.
So I end by simply calling for greater investment, including in security and defence. Such calls may fall on deaf ears, because of all the domestic challenges we face, but I simply say: look at how our fragile stability is fragmenting; we must be better prepared for the global shocks that our economy will face in the longer term. We are rekindling our statecraft skills, but please may we see an increase in defence spending in the spring Budget?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I have looked at the clock and at the number of speakers, and after the next speaker I will impose a seven-minute time limit on speeches.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and I wish her well, but she arrives in difficult times, because in 30 years as an MP, I have never seen the country’s finances in such a mess. We have the highest taxes since records began, the highest public sector debt since the 1960s and inflation at a 41-year high, and average households will be £1,900 worse off by the end of this Government.
At the same time, public services are on their knees and the OBR predicts a miserable 0.1% growth rate for the fourth quarter. The Government try to pile the blame on others—covid, Ukraine, the middle east and even their own past leaders—but the whole Conservative Government have done this, having voted through 13 years of flawed measures and disastrous policies that have not helped growth and jobs, but have intensified inequality and increased child poverty. We have had enough, the country has had enough and Britain deserves better.
I will focus on three areas that could make a real difference if the Government made different choices. In 2012, the tax gap—the gap between what HMRC receives and what taxpayers pay—was £34 billion. This year, it is up by nearly £2 billion, and if tax campaigners calculated it, they would probably triple or quadruple that figure. Failing to collect £36 billion is massive—that is £3 billion more than we spend on the whole of primary education across the UK.
Those who benefit most from HMRC’s failure to pursue them are the rich. Last year, only 11 wealthy individuals were prosecuted for tax cheating and only eight were pursued for evasion over two years. However, 420,000 people on low incomes, many not earning enough to pay a penny in tax, were taken to court for filing their tax returns too late.
What about the big multinationals who still aggressively avoid tax? TaxWatch’s analysis of just eight tech companies, including Google, Facebook and Apple, shows UK profits of £9.6 billion, but the tax paid amounted to a miserly £297 million. They avoided £1.5 billion in UK tax. Add the estimated £350 billion annual loss through fraud and money laundering, and we are talking about eye-watering sums, yet prosecutions and convictions by HMRC have both fallen by 75% in the last five years. This wretched failure to pursue tax avoiders, evaders, fraudsters, money launderers and multinationals is a scandalous stain on this Government and destroys faith in our system.
Equally awful is the fact that the Government cannot be trusted to spend our money wisely. Government waste is yet another scandalous stain on the Conservative Government’s record: £15 billion lost to fraud and error across all covid schemes, £1 billion overspent on a contract for a new warhead facility, another billion pounds lost on the Astute nuclear-powered submarines and £2.2 billion wasted on the now abandoned HS2 phase 2 project. The bill for the failed asylum support system has gone up fivefold in four years and cost us a shocking £3.6 billion. The staggering costs of meeting the needs of nearly 300,000 homeless families are at least £18 billion a year. With services so stretched, the waste of taxpayers’ money because of sheer incompetence is unforgivable. People are struggling while the Government squander.
I want to turn to the unfairness in the tax system that the Government deliberately promote. Our system is ridiculously complex, opening opportunities for aggressive tax avoidance. Take the 1,180 tax reliefs, of which 339 are non-structural reliefs, supposedly introduced to help a particular group achieve a particular policy outcome. We have no idea how much those tax reliefs cost or whether they are effective, and there is no accountability for the expenditure, because it is all below the line. One hundred reliefs have been costed, at an estimated £195 billion, which is almost double what we spend on local government and double the £46 billion spent on defence. That sum accounts for only a third of the 339 non-structural reliefs. With little data, and scant scrutiny and evaluation, we are sitting on a time bomb.
Take, for example, the cost of the research and development tax credit—up from £2.3 billion to £5.2 billion in five years, yet without an equivalent increase in R&D investment by companies. The patent box relief was introduced to encourage companies to commercialise their inventions, but has now been exploited as a tax loophole. The moment the KPMG partner seconded to the Treasury to write the technical rules for the relief left the Treasury, he produced a brochure entitled “Patent Box: what’s in it for you”. That relief is costing us £1 billion a year. Entrepreneurs’ relief cost £427 million in 2008-09, but that had ballooned to £2.2 billion by 2018-19, the last year for which I could find proper figures. The relief is supposed to encourage investment, but a survey of those who claimed it found that only 8% said the relief had influenced their decision at the point of investment.
Finally, we talk about making work pay, but we have a system in this country whereby the income that people gain from work is taxed at a higher rate than the income they gain from wealth. No such system can ever justify that we are a country that enables work to pay.
Jim Shannon
The rise in taxation for working-class people has implications for their childcare costs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that when it comes to childcare costs, it is impossible to make ends meet, and that working-class people and those on the poverty line need more help? Unfortunately, I do not see that help.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I agree entirely with what the hon. Member says. I simply point out that if we got the money in that was owed to us, spent it wisely and taxed fairly, we would be able not only to pay for childcare costs but to have the high-quality childcare that is essential to ensure that we equalise life chances.
This Government have failed. They have failed to get the money in, they have wasted billions and they have failed to tax and spend in a fair way. Trust and confidence have been squandered. It is time for them to go.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I welcome the autumn statement, which set out clear dividing lines between the two parties. The Conservative party wants to grow the cake and the Labour party wants to slice it into ever tinier pieces. The Conservative party understands that we will grow the cake by allowing people to fulfil their own potential, rather than imagining that the only possibility is increasing public spending, with the size of the cake set.
I welcome the autumn statement, but first let me talk about rhetoric. Rhetoric matters when we talk about homelessness, it matters when we talk about immigration and it matters when we talk about welfare. To be absolutely clear, this autumn statement raised benefits for working people by 6.7% and pensions by 8.5%. There is a controversial policy that suggests that those who do not engage with the welfare system should, if they proceed in that way for an unreasonable period, lose some of those benefits. It is easy to misrepresent that policy and to pretend that it is a bid to remove benefits from people who deserve them. The reality could not be further from the truth.
This is a policy like the sugar tax; it aims to alter people’s behaviour. In this case, it aims to alter the behaviour of individuals receiving benefits rather than of corporations that make fizzy drinks, but the analogy is, I think, correct. What the policy seeks to do is to encourage people to understand that if they do not do the right and responsible thing as citizens of this country and take the work that we know is out there then there should be consequences. That is not nasty; it is the definition of compassion. We as Conservatives should not be afraid to say that. It is a brave but overdue policy, and we should welcome it.
We should also acknowledge that it is part of a policy that will make a profound difference in particular to people who are able, as we now know from the post-covid environment, to take jobs that involve working from home. I welcome the new conditions around flexible working, which the Secretary of State set out in his opening remarks. As he said, we know that it is possible to work flexibly, but we also know that there is no nirvana of working from home all the time. I welcome in particular the tone that has been struck by the Chancellor and by the new and very welcome Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the way that they have talked about the rights and responsibilities of citizens when it comes to work.
Let me turn to the various issues that are loosely talked about as fiscal drag or tax simplification. The reality is that this autumn statement has overseen a tax cut unprecedented in size and scale for a number of years. Quite simply, that tax cut has come because of the increased headroom that this Government are now able to take advantage of.
The relative complexity of our tax system means that, unfortunately, we are sometimes sucked into an argument about income tax versus national insurance, versus a whole host of other things. We should be honest that the system is too complex. If we did not have the complexity around national insurance, income tax and a whole host of other things, we would be able to have a more honest, straightforward and comprehensive conversation about tax thresholds, about the right and fair level of tax and about where we as Conservatives want to lower it to. We would also be able to have a sensible conversation about some of the cliff edges that have inadvertently crept into the tax system, including around childcare and households that unfortunately have two people earning an amount exceeding the level where, if a single earner in the household exceeds it, the numbers simply do not add up. That is an inadvertent unfairness and one where I think we would all welcome greater simplification.
Another area where greater simplification in this autumn statement is welcome is pensions. I welcome the concept of one pot for life, which will allow us to look beyond the multiplicity of pots that people often accrue over the course of their lifetime, but it highlights the increasing need for the long-term pensions dashboard project to get over the line and underlines the fact that there is a greater opportunity for welcome projects such as open banking to fulfil their potential. All these projects rely on greater digital literacy among the population, and they rely on the Treasury to make further progress on the digital projects that will unleash things such as the pensions dashboard and projects such as making tax digital. All these things will allow greater simplification and greater fulfilment of potential by a host of different parts of our society, and I think we would all welcome some of those projects coming to fruition as quickly as possible.
Overall, I welcome an autumn statement that cuts taxes for 27 million working people. It sees us all benefit, but it also acknowledges that, given the extraordinary few years we have all lived through, from covid to the war in Ukraine, there is much that this Government have to continue to be fiscally responsible for. The call to cut taxes is a sensible one, but it must be done in the measured way that this autumn statement begins to do it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe, but the autumn statement had nothing to say about strengthening our military capabilities at a time of real concern about the size of our armed forces. We are facing a real crisis in recruitment and retention at a time when our armed forces are running hot, straining themselves to meet growing commitments with less. The defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. We should be stepping up support to help Ukraine through the winter and into 2024, but the Prime Minister is stepping back from UK leadership in Ukraine with no new military funding next year.
My constituents in Halton are looking on in despair as the Government again fail to provide the real-terms support to help them get through the toughest of times. This autumn statement is yet another crushing disappointment at a time when many people in my constituency and across the country consider whether they can afford to heat their homes, pay for food, or even meet the basic cost of staying in their own homes.
The Chancellor seems to have no idea about what matters to real people every day. We know that spiralling energy bills are causing huge anxiety for millions of people. The Chancellor has touted his national insurance cut as a “victory for working people”, but it will be wiped out immediately by the 5% increase in the energy price cap. Citizens Advice tells me that more than 50% of clients seeking debt advice are spending more money on essential bills and costs than they have coming in, and in Halton that figure is significantly higher. In 2023, Citizens Advice in Halton supported 1,713 clients to access the local food bank or other localised social welfare groups. That is almost as many as it assisted in 2019, 2020 and 2021 combined.
The autumn statement also provides little comfort to those who worry about how the Tory mortgage bombshell will continue to affect them. Average rents have increased by 25% since 2019, but the local housing allowance has remained static since April 2022. People need immediate help. By April, many more people will have been evicted. Our local housing list is stretched to breaking point, and, thanks to a lack of action by the Government, that list is getting longer by the day.
People need immediate help. The latest figures from Halton Borough Council state that we have had 3,156 homeless presentations, an increase of more than 50% on the previous year. Due to the increase in homelessness, there is extreme pressure on the local authority to secure temporary accommodation for homeless residents, but unfortunately demand far outstrips supply.
How can the Chancellor claim to be helping working people when so many people have to rely on charity simply to put food on the table? According to End Child Poverty, 32.1% of children in my constituency are living in poverty. The Resolution Foundation says that personal taxes are going up, not down, with the tax cuts announced in the autumn statement dwarfed by the previously announced tax rises in the form of the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds for six years.
Charities are also on the frontline when it comes to supporting those in the community who face hardship through illness. Marie Curie illustrates the harrowing reality when it tells us that, each year, 90,000 people die in poverty in the UK. The Chancellor insists that the best way to tackle poverty is through work, but what does he say to those who are far too seriously unwell to work and will die before they are old enough to claim their state pension? Where is the targeted support for them? Will he commit to exempting terminally ill people from having to look for work?
The Chancellor has done nothing to address the crisis in local government funding. On a population basis, Halton has lost £899 per resident, while the national average cut is £581 per resident, a difference of £318. Therefore, Halton’s reduction in funding per head of population has been 55% greater than the national average—a terrible thing for local authorities to cope with. Councils continue to buckle under the strain of rocketing demand for social care. To give a local example, 28% of delayed discharges at Whiston Hospital are Halton people who require some form of social care.
Areas that see increased demand need increased support. I continue to hear from families who cannot access specialist support for their children in school. Once again, education has been left by the wayside. SEN is in crisis. These are some of our most vulnerable children. Local authorities and schools have no idea how to keep up with demand. They and the children’s families are in crisis. On top of that, school transport budgets for children with special educational needs and disabilities will become unsustainable for local authorities nationwide as costs are predicted to triple to over £1.1 billion over the course of this decade. According to Stop School Cuts, every school in my constituency faces cuts to its spending power. Again, the Chancellor failed to do anything about that in the autumn statement.
As a result, schools will have to reduce their educational provision, for example by increasing class sizes or reducing individual support. Time and again, constituents have contacted me to complain that the most basic services are unavailable to them. Last month, we lost one of our only remaining dentists who provided NHS treatment. A huge number of patients scramble to access emergency dentistry. That is an utter disgrace. Other constituents are facing years-long waits for operations, while some report that they are unable to access mental health services. That is what is happening in reality on the ground, which the Chancellor’s autumn statement completely ignored.
After 13 years of Tory Government, what is their economic legacy? People across the country face the highest tax burden since the second world war, mainly because of the five-year freeze of personal allowances. Households will see the biggest fall in living standards since the 1950s. Growth forecasts are dire. For far too many people, the only growth that they will see is that of poverty. The Government have no answers. They have failed to address Britain’s long-standing productivity problem. Public services are in crisis. Nothing works. It is a record of unbelievable incompetence by the Government. The autumn statement offers no prospect of change. We know that the time has come for change, but more importantly, the British people know it and they want to get rid of this failing and incompetent Tory Government.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I rise to make a few remarks in support of the Chancellor’s autumn statement, emphasising two themes that came out strongly from it. They have been consistent themes for the Government over the past 13 years we have been in office: boosting incomes, particularly for those in the lowest income brackets, and improving our benefits system to ensure that we have a dynamic labour market and individuals can fulfil their maximum potential.
Before I go into those points, it is worth underlining again where we were 13 years ago when we took office. The minimum wage was less than £6 an hour, the state pension was less than £100 an hour—no pensioner will forget the derisory 75p increase that they got from Gordon Brown—and we had a welfare system where more than 1 million people had been languishing out of work for almost 10 years, out of the reach of any meaningful engagement from local job centres. We should not forget either that, while the Labour party might this afternoon present itself as a party of welfare reform, spending restraint and sensible economics, for most of the past 13 years it set its face against every step that we took to try to improve our benefits system. What we have now is not perfect—no benefits system ever is—but it is so much better than what was in place under the previous Labour Government. We know that because Labour Ministers who served in the Department for Work and Pensions before 2010 were themselves highly dissatisfied with the benefits system. Those with particular reforming instincts were doing their best, fighting an uphill battle to see improvements. We should not trust the Labour party as a party of benefit reform.
Briefly on boosting incomes, a national living wage of £11.44 an hour is transformational for constituencies such as mine in Pembrokeshire, where for decades there has been a culture of low pay, as there has been right across Wales. Thousands of people in my constituency will benefit from that increase to the living wage. Increasing the state pension by the full triple lock boost will ensure that pensioners continue to see the full value of their pension increase. That comes at a cost. All of us who defend the triple lock need to bear in mind that it has significant long-term costs, and we need to speak to how they will be met in the future, but the triple lock that this Conservative Government introduced in 2010 has been transformational in lifting pensioners out of poverty in my constituency, and all across the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
One of the reasons the triple lock is in place is the confidence and supply agreement between the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative party. It was one of the things that we insisted upon. When it comes to giving credit for things, I want to keep the record straight.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Member makes a strong point on behalf of his party. Lots of people claim credit for the triple lock. Again, all of us who defend the triple lock need to bear in mind the long-term costs and be ready to speak to how the country will afford them. The answer that successive Governments have found of just pushing the state pension further out of reach by increasing the state pension age is not a long-term sustainable plan.
On benefit reform, I strongly support what the Government are trying to do in linking together more closely the work of local jobcentres with that of health authorities, health boards and the Department of Health and Social Care overall. Successive Ministers have found huge institutional resistance to the NHS and the DWP working together—two massive spending Departments that have levers to do something really positive in getting people with long-term sickness and disabilities back into work. It is really encouraging to see much greater levels of co-operation than at any time in the past 20 or 30 years.
The point that has been made several times this afternoon about obligations is really important. There was speculation that the Chancellor would not uprate working-age benefits by the higher level of autumn inflation rates, but he did so. That was entirely consistent with what the Conservative Government have done consistently through the pandemic and the cost of living challenges, which is to help people on the lowest incomes. The Government doing the right thing and choosing to be consistent in that underlines the point about obligations, and the social compact that needs to be at the heart of our welfare system. Government Members have talked about that, as have those on the Labour Front Bench. An adequate benefits system supports people on the lowest incomes and provides a strong and secure safety net. There needs to be a sense of obligation around that as well.
As I said, there were Labour welfare Ministers who struggled with how to engage people who had been long-term sick and had long-term health needs to get more meaningful interaction, so that they could perhaps begin a journey back to work if that was appropriate. It is one of the biggest public policy challenges that we as a Government have faced. If the Labour party forms the next Government, it will wrestle with that, too. Governments of countries around the world that share a similar demographic to ours, with an ageing population and increasing numbers of elderly and sick people, are wrestling with these challenges. There are no easy solutions.
Mr Jayawardena
Does my right hon. Friend agree that fundamentally this is just a question of fairness? It is about supporting those who genuinely need our help, but when people choose welfare because they choose not to look for work, hard-working taxpayers should not pay the bill.
Stephen Crabb
I agree with my right hon. Friend to a point. There is always an issue of fairness, and perceived fairness, when it comes to the distribution of taxpayers’ money to people.
I question whether there are large numbers of people out there who want to live their lives not working or contributing to our society. If I really press them, the people I meet in my constituency who are struggling with long-term illnesses and have been out of work for a long time, say they would love to be working. They would love to visualise themselves in a job and playing a full part in the economy. The truth is that many of them need support. Some of them need a bit more than just warm words of encouragement, and that is why I have always defended the appropriate use of sanctions and conditionality in our benefits system.
This time of assistive technology, flexible working and homeworking should be a new golden age for people who sadly live with long-term health conditions to be able to get back into the workplace. I am really pleased that Government Ministers are grappling with that and thinking about the long-term steps that could be taken to help people back into work. As I say, that is one of the great public policy challenges of our time.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I want to talk about some of the massive challenges we face in Newham, because frankly the autumn statement offers precious little to solve them.
I will start with the scourge of knife crime. In Newham, our communities have been brutalised by knife attacks over many years. August alone saw 38 attacks that caused injury—the highest number for five years—leaving many young lives destroyed, families devastated and communities broken by fear and struggling to heal. The truth is that social problems make young people vulnerable to the gang grooming that leads to that violence. Many young people are growing up with little stability, without even a safe place to call home and with parents racked by the stress of unpayable bills and insecure work.
Far from inspiring confidence, the autumn statement confirmed that the average household is set to be almost two grand worse off by the next election than they were at the last. Those households will know that 40% of the benefits coming from the autumn statement are going to the wealthiest 20% of the population. That unfairness weakens our entire society, because poverty creates vulnerability to grooming. It destroys a young person’s trust that our society can provide a decent chance and a future for them.
My community tries to work its way out of poverty, yet it is nigh-on impossible. The lower quartile of earnings in Newham is £1,792 a month, but paying the lower quartile of private rents leaves just £492, before food, energy or transport costs, or the costs of raising a family, are even considered. Our children know it. They see their parents struggling. Gangs are using fake job ads to target children on the social media sites they use, clearly aimed at children who know their parents are up against it—children who want to help make ends meet. When mum and dad are having to take on more hours to pay the bills, meaning there is no one in the house in the evening or at weekends, that is the impact.
Those pressures are huge, but Newham’s housing crisis is truly brutal. Tens of thousands of families simply cannot afford private rents, and social housing supply remains minuscule compared with the level of need. The consequence is that 8,363 children are estimated to be homeless in Newham alone. There are more children trapped in temporary accommodation in those 14 square miles than there are in entire regions of the country combined—more than in the east midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the north-east put together. That temporary accommodation is unsuitable for families, or frankly for anyone, with mould, damp and terrible overcrowding.
All that causes chaos in young lives. It massively disrupts education and makes it harder for teachers, social workers or GPs to spot the signs that a young life is going off the rails so that they can intervene. It creates added costs for our stretched public services, which are scrambling to keep up, and enormous and rapidly increasing costs to the council. The council is spending more than £20 million a year on temporary accommodation costs alone. That is money that it cannot spend on improving children’s lives or on youth work to help to make children at risk of involvement in knife crime more resilient. It cannot spend it on keeping the streets clean or on supporting our schools so that they can deal with difficult behaviour without excluding children and practically handing them over to the gangs.
I welcome the Government’s boost to the local housing allowance—I really do. It will do something to slow down the rate at which homelessness is getting worse. But, frankly, it is not a solution. Far more strategic action is necessary, and so is more recognition that those problems are interconnected and that our councils and our public services are best placed to solve them. As we know, the Tory pre-election Budget is balanced on massive future cuts to our public services and our councils. The Tories are robbing the next Government in a last-ditch attempt to save themselves. I honestly do not know how Tory Members can look their constituents in the face and tell them that they think the planned cuts are practical or achievable.
Let us face it: our NHS and many other services are on the verge of collapse and utterly failing to deliver for our communities. What we are hearing from the Government does not match the reality that my constituents see all around them. Surely to heavens we must repair our public services and give all our young people a future, with genuinely accessible opportunities in education and in work. We need to restore our children’s trust in a future where they are truly rewarded for their contributions to our society and for their massive potential. After 13 years of Tory failure, that will only come about with a Labour Government.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement are sensible and responsible and will make a real difference to the people and businesses across the two Cities.
The Government have taken a pragmatic approach to delivering tax cuts. We all know that the cost of the measures to support businesses and households through the covid pandemic and the energy price shock caused by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine drove up spending and meant that tax cuts were impractical for a long time. However, as we continue to rebuild our economy, improve productivity and focus on growth, we do so by following competent and careful economic management. That is why I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announce fully funded tax cuts that will have a real impact on both families and businesses. The autumn statement was the biggest package of tax cuts announced as a fiscal event since the 1980s.
For me, there were two major headlines. First, there was the permanent extension of the full expensing policy, which will act as a springboard to help UK companies to invest in the latest technologies and machinery and create highly skilled jobs. Secondly, of course, there was the 2% reduction in national insurance—a tax cut for 27 million people, which will ensure that they will keep more of their earnings to spend or save as they wish.
The Chancellor was also right to prioritise helping people into work to boost the economy. Just last week, I was pleased to join the then employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), on a visit to the Italian café and deli Ben Venuti in Pimlico, where we discussed the Government’s new hospitality sector-based work academy programme trial run, in partnership with the trade body UKHospitality, to encourage more people into careers in the hospitality sector. That programme, and last week’s announcement of a further £50 million to support apprenticeships, clearly show that the Government recognise that getting people into work, and helping them to train, retrain and develop their careers—no matter their age or background —is the best way to help people and support the economy. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham is now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and will see the Pedicabs (London) Bill through this place.
Not only will the autumn statement provide more opportunities for people to get into new and exciting careers, but the Chancellor has announced significant support for households. Raising local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local market rents in April 2024 will benefit 1.6 million low-income households, which will be £800 a year better off on average. That will certainly be welcome news for thousands of households across the two Cities.
I am proud that my constituency is embracing the life sciences sector, having attracted thousands of jobs to the Paddington basin development. I am delighted that the Imperial College Healthcare Trust’s new Fleming Centre is being created in Paddington, backed by £5 million of seed funding announced in the autumn statement. It was where penicillin was first discovered, and the new centre will help us in the global fight against antimicrobial resistance and further establish the two Cities as an important centre for the growing life sciences industry.
I would be remiss not to mention the important work undertaken by the City of London Corporation as it strives to ensure that our financial and professional services remain the best in the world, and that the square mile remains the place in which companies from every corner of the globe want to do business. We know that that has a massive and positive knock-on effect, supporting more than two million jobs across the UK, so it is good to hear that the Chancellor is pressing ahead on the pension reforms that were unveiled with the signing of the Mansion House compact in the City in July this year.
The measures announced in the autumn statement protect not only economic prosperity but our communities. Nobody can be immune from the dreadful scenes in the middle east. Sadly, we have seen the repercussions of terror attacks, and of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, on our own streets. I have been appalled by the testimonies that I have heard from the Jewish community in my constituency, who are genuinely scared of the 1,350% rise in antisemitic incidents in London alone. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement of £3 million of additional funding this year for the Community Security Trust, and of a further £7 million over the next three years, for organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, to help tackle antisemitism.
I must take this opportunity to highlight one measure that, sadly, we did not see in the autumn statement. It is one that would have profound economic benefits for Cities of London and Westminster, the capital and the whole country: tax-free shopping for international visitors. I recognise that the autumn statement delivers support for the retail, hospitality and leisure industries by extending the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme, which will continue to provide eligible occupied retail, hospitality and leisure properties with 75% relief on business rates. That is all welcome, but new research from the Centre for Economics and Business Research shows that if the former tax-free shopping scheme had not been scrapped, the total spending from international visitors would have been £3.3 billion more in 2022. The reason for that is the dynamic nature of international visitors’ spending habits. Although they would receive a tax break on their shopping, they would still pay VAT in restaurants, theatres, pubs, bars, clubs, hotels and, of course, black cabs. Places such as Knightsbridge and the west end—particularly Oxford Street, Bond Street and Regent Street—have been feeling the pinch since international tax-free shopping disappeared. Large international luxury brands all report seeing a fall in their revenues compared with their outlets in Milan and Paris. We need that scheme back.
The Government recognise the tremendous opportunities that lay ahead for the economy and the United Kingdom, and I applaud the Chancellor for his work to strengthen the economy so that we can now focus on growth and prosperity for all. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the economy continues to bounce back from the pandemic and flourish for years to come.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
From listening to some Conservative Members, one might think we were in some sort of economic Shangri-La. The only positive element about the autumn statement is that it was not the previous Chancellor’s statement, so I congratulate the Chancellor—perhaps this could be passed on—on not being the previous Chancellor.
In substance, the change of staff in Downing Street means that the country is not quite as far up the creek without a paddle as we may have been under the last Administration, but that is of small comfort to the millions of people who are still paying more for less, so I am sure the Chancellor will understand if I do not give him a high five. He is like a dentist telling the patient that they need only four teeth taken out without anaesthetic rather than five, and dressing that up as good news.
The autumn statement was an act of neglect. The facts from the Office for Budget Responsibility speak for themselves: real growth is down, debt interest is up, inflation is slowing but high, and productivity is in its boots. After 13 years of blundering, every indicator is pointing in the wrong direction. The Conservative party has spent months making lofty pronouncements about long-term decisions, but the Chancellor’s statement looked no further than the next election. By now, this House and the British public are used to the wide gap between their claims and fiscal reality.
Does anyone remember the “long-term economic plan” from 2014? What happened to that? What about “strong and stable” in 2017? Where has that gone, and where are northern powerhouse and HS2? It is strange that we did not hear any of those phrases in the statement. Of course, the Chancellor could not even bring himself to mention “a brighter future”—the slogan that adorned his party conference just a few weeks ago. The statement shows that the Conservatives have not learned a single lesson from their 13 years in power. They have not hit one of their fiscal rules in 13 years.
Once again, we see the old approach, which the public now roundly reject: attacks on our public sector, which is always refused the resources that it needs; and, as we have heard this afternoon, the scapegoating of social security claimants—particularly disabled people—through cuts to the social security system, to pay for the Government’s economic chaos. We can see from the polls that the public are tired of the same old Tory approach put forward in the autumn statement. They are tired of NHS waiting lists of nearly 8 million people waiting for healthcare, including 14,000 people in my constituency and constituents of every Member in this Chamber. Almost 200 schools are at the point of collapse because the Government decided to halt the Building Schools for the Future programme. The number of bus services has been halved since 2011, leaving more people isolated and unable to access services. And it goes on: the housing market is in a parlous state; mortgage defaults are going through the roof, if people have one; and many landlords are out of control and using no-fault evictions. In huge swathes of the country, it is almost impossible for people to get a mortgage, let alone pay it.
I will concentrate on two elements. First, on tax, the Chancellor tried to buy off the electorate with headline-grabbing changes to national insurance, but those policies only thinly conceal the true picture of what is happening under this Government. The frozen tax thresholds mean that those who make their living from work will pay tens of billions of pounds more while taxes on the wealthy remain largely flat—that is a political choice; it is as simple as that. Over the pandemic, the top 10% accrued £50,000 each in additional wealth, according to the Resolution Foundation. The list goes on.
In reality, the changes to national insurance that were announced last week will be paid for by cuts in services. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the statement bakes in a real-terms cut, to the tune of £22 billion by 2028, to departmental budgets. That almost exactly matches the £20 billion that was spent on the national insurance proposals announced last week, and of course there will be more cuts in local government, right across the piece. It has been 13 years of blight, with tax cuts paid for by denuding public services and implemented by a deluded Government, and a weaker safety net. It is the same old Conservatives in action.
What about national borrowing? The Tories would have us believe that they borrow less and pay back more, but I will quickly fact-check that claim. The only fact we need to know is that the Tories make it up as they go along: the reality is that they borrow more and pay back less. That is fairly well documented—one or two Conservative MPs may want to ask their researchers to check that with the Library.
Turning to public services, what is that £20 billion of cuts going to look like? It will be dreadful. The Resolution Foundation says that the pain now being proposed is “implausible” in its scale. The Institute for Fiscal Studies broke down those cuts in more detail and found that if some Departments continue to be protected, that means 3.4% cuts across the board for others. That £20 billion of cuts means more bankrupt councils, longer waiting lists in the courts and fewer police—in short, a continued decline in the quality of our lives, and more pressure on the social fabric that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke about. It all adds up to the greatest fall in disposable incomes since 1955. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calls the plans “fundamentally inadequate” to deal with the 4 million people in this country who are in destitution.
What we need—what we are all calling for, including my communities in Bootle—is a general election as soon as possible to get that shower out.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his autumn statement, which was well thought through, soundly based and properly reasoned. Post covid, with war in eastern Europe and the middle east and with the ongoing cost of living crisis, his task is an incredibly difficult one. With 110 growth measures, he has rightly recognised the need to boost growth, but as he has stressed, that growth must be secured on sound foundations and must not take the form of a reckless, debt-fuelled rush for growth. There are areas of reform that I believe he should have covered, such as business rates, social care funding and special educational needs. However, this autumn statement is very much a step in the right direction, and provides a platform on which he and the Government can build in the coming weeks and months.
I will briefly cover three areas, the first of which is investment in skills. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recognises the importance of that investment to improve productivity and secure sustainable economic growth. In that respect, the announcement of £50 million to increase the number of apprenticeships in key growth areas is to be welcomed. However, there remains a need for a long-term strategy to enhance skills. I look forward to an update on the work of Sir Michael Barber, which was announced in last year’s autumn statement; a significant uplift in revenue funding for further education colleges and training providers; and a review of the apprenticeship levy, which was a welcome initiative when it was introduced in 2017, but is in need of reform so that it can perform to its full potential.
Secondly, we need to continue to protect the most vulnerable. Covid’s tail has been harsh and long and, along with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has created the kind of cost of living crisis that we have not seen for 100 years. Last year and this year, the Government have stepped up to the plate to support people. As such, many of last week’s announcements are to be welcomed, including increasing the national living wage, increasing all working-age benefits in full by 6.7%, boosting pensions by 8.5% in line with the triple lock, and significantly increasing the local housing allowance.
There is no doubt that there is both a skills shortage and a skills mismatch in the UK at present. It is in that context that I am supportive of the back to work plan, which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went through earlier. However, I emphasise two notes of caution. First, the deficit in investment in skills and training that has been prevalent for most of this century means that a lot of people are a long way from the workplace. We should not underestimate the challenge of equipping those people with the skills they need to first hold down jobs, and then embark on rewarding career paths. Secondly, there are people—those with deteriorating neurological conditions, for instance—who are very worried about the forthcoming review of the work capability assessment. We must do all we can to support them through what will be a period of upheaval, and ensure that we avoid situations where those who are palpably unable to work are asked to do so under the threat of sanction. My concerns have been allayed to a large degree by what my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, but it is important to emphasise those points.
Thirdly, in the east of England and particularly along the Suffolk and Norfolk coast, there is enormous potential for long-term, rewarding jobs in the low-carbon energy sector. In that context, last week’s various announcements to promote the renewables sector are very welcome. What I would emphasise is that to make the most of that great opportunity, it is vital that as the Government implement their levelling-up agenda, the east is not overlooked. In his speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced some new investment zones to follow on from those that were revealed in the autumn statement, none of which was in the east of England. We have a successful enterprise zone in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, and I hope we can look at reinvigorating it.
My final point on the need for levelling up in the east of England is that we are the lowest-lying region in the UK, and we have a long and porous coastline. That means that we are particularly vulnerable to flooding and coastal erosion, which are being accelerated by climate change. In recent days, many homes have disappeared over the cliff in Pakefield in my constituency. That has brought despair and desperation to many, and moreover creates risks from dangerous cliffs and the exposure of world war two sweeper markers, which have been detonated today. Thanks are due to the emergency services for all that they are doing, working in appalling conditions to keep people safe, but communities are at severe risk—not only Pakefield, but communities right up and down the Norfolk and Suffolk coast.
Over the course of the next few weeks, we must look very closely at the coastal protection budget and its operation. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to liaise very closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who is getting up to speed with his new and challenging brief at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
What does this autumn statement do for the people of Ealing, Southall? In the 13 years since the Conservative Government came into office, there has been nothing but failed plans and weak growth. This is not about the politics; it is about real people. More than 4,000 people in Ealing, Southall cannot find work—that is 6.8%, nearly double the national rate. The Chancellor promised growth. He told us that he was delivering growth, but where is it? Growth projections are down for this year, next year, and the year after. I hope the Chancellor is ready to fend off any Members of the other place who are keen for his job, as the Prime Minister has made it clear that he does not think the talent is in this Chamber.
From a botched Boris Brexit to a Trussonomics fiasco, and flailing around from one crisis to the next, this Government know the writing is on the wall, because we see slow growth, stagnating pay, higher taxes and falling incomes. Household incomes will still be 3.5% lower next year in real terms than they were pre-pandemic. Across the OECD, we have one of the worst rates, while near peers and neighbours France, Ireland and Japan have higher household incomes than before covid-19.
From speaking to my constituents, I know that the cost of heating, water and food—the staples they need—just keep going up. Many cannot cope, and no one here can have failed to notice. I am proud to work with groups such as Ealing food bank, and many temples, gurdwaras and mosques across my constituency and the country do the same in feeding and clothing those who need it. Ealing food bank is meant to be an emergency service for those in the most dire need, but week in and week out the same people are there, unable to feed their families, their children and themselves because of what this Government have done to the economy. Either this Government cannot agree a plan, or they do not have one.
Whether people have managed to get on the property ladder or still want to, this Government have it in for them. Mortgage rates have further to rise, and the OBR has yet again revised projections up. While people are already facing doubled mortgage rates, the peak is yet to come in 2027. On planning and building, the Government’s announcements do nothing to meet the scale of new homes that need to be built. There have been 16 Housing Ministers since they came to office, which shows just how seriously they take the role: more Housing Ministers than houses built by the Ministers. That is in stark contrast to Labour. At conference, we announced a comprehensive package that will help to build 1.5 million homes in five years.
Across west London, poor management of the electricity grid by the Government has held up and delayed the development of housing and jobs. Under-investment and poor planning are choking growth and sending prices up, yet on electricity the Prime Minister and the Chancellor remain ideological, with an extra cost of £180 each and every year for every family. That is the cost of banning onshore wind, and with clean energy dropped, solar crashed and no new carbon storage, this Government seem committed to looking backwards, not forwards.
So I ask: with youth unemployment in Ealing, Southall at nearly double the national rate, what is there for future generations? There are no jobs to be had, there is nowhere to live and there is no environment left, and we have seen the worst hit to living standards on record. Will his record as Chancellor be to lead on this in the biggest tax-raising Parliament on record, or will he be remembered for simply tinkering at the edges and leaving Labour to deal with it?
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Chancellor’s autumn statement strikes the right balance between providing tax cuts for individuals, mainly through the two percentage point reduction in national insurance for 27 million people, and the biggest tax cut in modern British history of £11 billion for business. All this has been made possible by careful management of the nation’s finances and the halving of inflation over the last year.
Since the Prime Minister and the Chancellor took office on 25 October last year, I have strongly supported their economic policy, which has put the defeat of inflation and a reduction in Government borrowing as the top priorities. This is the route to growth, rather than a dangerous policy of unfunded spending increases and unfunded tax cuts that would lead only to a latter-day Barber boom. The Chancellor’s economic policy is following in the footsteps of the Thatcher, Major and Cameron Governments, all of whom bequeathed sound public finances and robust economic growth to their successors, and the Government’s policy is working.
Contrary to the unfounded scare stories peddled by the Opposition parties, the UK has grown faster than Germany and France since the pandemic, and Government borrowing is set to fall from 5% of GDP last year to 1.1% of GDP by 2028-29. Having listened to the litany of criticisms from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), I hope that she will also be admonishing her friends in the Labour Welsh Government for their appalling mismanagement of the NHS in Wales, where waiting lists per capita are far higher than in England.
The autumn statement is impressive in its breadth of detail, but time is short so I would like to highlight a few key areas in addition to the personal and business tax cuts I have already mentioned. Given its great natural beauty, my constituency of Clwyd South has many hospitality businesses, so I was very pleased by the Chancellor’s extension of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief—a measure that I and many of my colleagues campaigned for—for another year, and his announcement that alcohol duty will be frozen until August next year.
I am also glad that the Chancellor dispelled the uncertainty about the pensions triple lock by confirming an increase of 8.5% for next year, and that he is raising all working-age benefits in full by 6.7%, with both increases well above the current rate of inflation. The Government are also right to tackle long-term unemployment by strengthening support for those who want to work, while toughening sanctions for those who are not looking hard enough, as was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at the start of the debate. If I may, as an idea for the Budget next year, I suggest that the Chancellor considers raising the VAT threshold to help small businesses such as the Two Doves café in Overton in my constituency.
I am also delighted by the Chancellor’s announcement that one of the 12 new investment zones will be located in Wrexham and Flintshire. As the MP for Clwyd South, I represent half of the Wrexham County Borough Council area. Having pressed the case for the investment zone with the Government on multiple occasions, including on the Floor of the House, I was honoured to be mentioned by the Chancellor in his statement alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), and to visit Airbus in Broughton with him the day after the statement.
The strength of the case put forward for the investment zone lay in the highly effective campaign by a cross-party group of politicians and business owners, chaired by Joanna Swash, chief executive officer of Moneypenny, and including representatives of Wrexham and Flintshire councils—they deserve a great deal of credit in this process—as well as JCB, Airbus, Net World Sports, Theatr Clwyd, the North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council, Wrexham University and Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre Cymru.
Not only is this a major win for north-east Wales, but the autumn statement also extended the level of funding and tax relief available to investment zones to £160 million over a period of 10 years to provide greater certainty to investors. Previously, each zone was set to receive £80 million of support over a five-year period. It is estimated that this could leverage an additional £1.7 billion of investment for Wrexham, Clwyd South and Flintshire, and help create thousands of new jobs.
In conclusion, I warmly welcome the autumn statement, which will lead to a continued fall in inflation and Government borrowing, and, due to the depth and breadth of its well-targeted measures, ensure the growing strength of our economy across all regions of the UK in the years to come.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)
The Government have tried some sleight of hand with this so-called “autumn statement for growth” just as the OBR has revised its projections for the economy downwards. Indeed, the OBR’s figures for the coming years tell a very different story from the Chancellor’s: GDP growth was nil in the three months to September, while the OBR has revised growth for next year down by more than half from 1.8% to 0.7%, for the year after that down from 2.5% to 1.4%, and for 2026 marginally down as well. These figures are cause for alarm, signalling a potential economic downturn. In fact, retail sales are already falling and unemployment is rising. The OBR now forecasts that unemployment will go even higher than previously thought, reaching 4.6% by 2025.
If we have learned anything from the past 13 years of the Tories at the helm of the economy, it is that working people and the most vulnerable in our society are always the ones who are made to pay the price for their damaging decisions. A clear example is the Chancellor’s spin over the cuts to national insurance, which in reality will give back to workers less than a quarter of the £44.6 billion that will be taken away from them in frozen tax thresholds by 2028. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) advised, the 5% energy price cap rise will impact as well. These national insurance cuts will not do anything to help those earning less than the threshold, who are mostly low-paid, part-time workers and those in the gig economy lacking basic employment rights and protections, and they will disproportionately impact women.
Furthermore, the total absence of additional funding for public services will hit those most in need the hardest. Taking £1.2 billion out of the pockets of disabled people and affecting 700,000 people with a one-third cut in their benefits and increased conditionality, while handing businesses £12 billion in tax giveaways, is totally unconscionable. But it serves as a reminder, if we ever needed one, of whose interests the Conservative party serves. It is not its billionaire backers who will be impacted by the record waiting lists in the NHS, as they all have private healthcare, nor will it be their children whose education is negatively impacted by cuts to school budgets. How can the Government claim to be promoting economic growth when the very fabric of our society is fraying at the seams after more than a decade of crippling austerity?
At the local authority level, as well, we are seeing councils across the country teetering on the brink of collapse. They have enormous holes in their finances. What do we on Teesside get from the Government in response? We get the condescending slur of “holes” of a different variety.
Thanks to the Conservatives’ decision to slash local government funding, along with the disgraceful mismanagement of the previous administration in my town, Middlesbrough Council has been put in the unwelcome position of having to sell its major income-generating assets to try to deliver a balanced budget. While food banks creak under the strain and thousands of children go to school hungry, we have the farce of Members on the Conservative Benches blaming the newly elected Labour administration for clearing up the mess left by others.
Another matter that the Chancellor addressed in his statement that has a major impact on my constituency relates to freeports. The Government have announced their intention to extend the duration of the tax reliefs available in freeports from five to 10 years. The Chancellor explained that this decision was made in part thanks to “tenacious representations” by
“the unstoppable Mayor of Tees Valley”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 332.]
I must say that that description of the Mayor is not incorrect. He has certainly been unstoppable in locking the taxpayer into dreadful deals that set up private investors with all the reward but none of the risk, which is left to the public purse. In the latest edition of Private Eye we are told how the reckless boasting of Lord Houchen regarding the announcement of British Steel setting up an electric arc steel recycling plant on Teesside—on its own land—has left the Chinese-owned company with the British taxpayer over a barrel. Too eager to claim credit for something that has nothing to do with him and to present the deal as done while the company is still in negotiations with the Government over subsidies, he has potentially cost the public purse astronomical amounts of money. Such is the arrogance displayed by the Mayor, his office even put out a video showing him hand-signing a legal agreement with the caption “new electric arc furnace”, although on closer inspection the document turned out to be an old one for a solar farm.
This sums up how the Conservative party operates: all smoke and mirrors, when behind the façade its decisions only leave the British public worse off, much like this tawdry “autumn statement for growth”. The Home Secretary really let the Tory party mask slip with his foul-mouthed outburst last week, but he and his colleagues should be in no doubt that the people of Teesside and people across the country have long memories and will let their voices be heard at the ballot box as soon as they get their chance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I will be leaving the Chair shortly, I just want to wish everybody a happy Lancashire Day—and how better to follow that than by calling a proud Cornishman, Steve Double.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the autumn statement because there is so much in it to be welcomed, but most importantly I welcome the pragmatic approach being taken to see inflation fall and address the challenges in our public finances in a responsible manner.
It is important that we acknowledge the difficult circumstances that are the backdrop to this statement: the once-in-100-year challenge of the covid-19 pandemic, followed so quickly by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the shock that sent through the global energy markets, mean that this Government are having to face a set of economic and public finance challenges that we have not seen in living memory. One of those challenges on its own would have been enough; the difficulty created by having to deal with both in such quick succession cannot be underestimated.
The Government rightly spent the money they did to protect jobs and businesses and to support households through the pandemic and the energy crisis, but we are often quick to forget all that they did. We must also remember that the money has to come from somewhere. We must not forget, either, that no matter how loudly those on the Opposition Benches shout, on almost every measure we introduced to support households and the economy, the Opposition said it was not enough and we should do more.
We will also never forget that the Leader of the Opposition wanted lockdowns to be longer and harder. We know that if the Opposition had been in government for the last three years, lockdowns would have been longer, more money would have been spent, the recovery would have been slower, and debt would be higher and we would have to be raising taxes even more in order to pay for it all. In the light of that backdrop, it is remarkable that the Chancellor has been able to announce the measures he has, and that has only been possible because of our responsible approach to managing the economy.
I welcome the 2% cut in national insurance, which will put hundreds of pounds back in the pockets of those in work. I welcome the increase in pensions by inflation and the retention of our commitment to the triple lock; the 8% rise will mean the state pension will be £3,750 a year more than in 2010, which is a testament to this Government’s support for and commitment to pensioners. I welcome benefits being increased by 6.7%, in line with inflation; I represent a constituency where 13,500 households are on universal credit and it is vital that benefits keep pace with rising prices. I very much welcome the increase in the local housing allowance, too; it is particularly important in Cornwall that the Government have been able to do that, because we have among the highest rents when compared with average incomes.
I also welcome the support to businesses, especially the extension of the 75% reduction in business rates for many high-street businesses. That is so important, particularly for hospitality businesses in mid-Cornwall that in recent years have been facing some of the most difficult times. I also welcome the rise in the national living wage to £11.44 an hour. That will give a substantial pay rise to so many workers in St Austell and Newquay, but we have to be clear that although the Government set that figure, it is businesses that will have to find the money from their revenues to pay it. I therefore encourage the Treasury team to continue to look in the coming months at what more can be done to support our small businesses. Although the measures announced are welcome, many businesses will still face challenging times in the months and years ahead.
I was delighted that the Chancellor made clear that the content of the autumn statement was only the start of tax reductions, and we look forward to more. If I may be so bold, I will suggest one. I welcome the new Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) to his place, and he will be familiar with this idea. I encourage him to use his new position to influence the Treasury to look again at cutting VAT for tourism and hospitality. When that was cut through the pandemic, we saw how positive it was in boosting that important part of our economy, so I encourage him to look at that again.
My final point is on the care sector, which is already struggling in so many ways and is concerned about the impact of the rise in the national living wage. Will the Treasury look again at what more can be done to support that sector in the coming months, because otherwise absorbing the rise in the living wage will put even more pressure on a system that is already creaking?
I very much welcome the autumn statement. With the backdrop of the challenges we are facing, it is welcome that we have been able to come forward with these measures. We have made the right decisions at this time, and I look forward to more to come in the months ahead.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Just listening to some of the comments from right hon. and hon. Members, we could be forced to think we were living in a different Britain. I think about the emails I receive from constituents who are struggling and crying out for the Government to help. I think about the people worried about the changes to their benefits—people who through no fault of their own cannot work—and yet the Government say, “If you do not work, you will lose your benefits.” Even trying to get through to the Department for Work and Pensions is a struggle and a challenge for a number of those people. I hope that, in introducing the proposals in this autumn statement, the Government think about how we care for the most vulnerable in society.
This autumn statement marks just over a year since the disastrous mini-Budget, and we can all remember that. When so many people in the UK were struggling, the then Prime Minister thought that the best thing to do was to lift bonuses for bankers and give tax cuts to the rich. When so many were just trying to get their feet back on the ground after covid, we saw tax cuts being awarded to some of the richest in our country. That is not how we should be responding. The current Prime Minister is trying to say that he represents change, but this autumn statement is a watered-down version of the same flawed priorities that are failing my constituents and others right across the country. As a result, my constituents are paying a lot more of their hard-earned money simply to put food on the table.
I visited one of our food banks in Waterloo, just across the bridge from here, which is busy every day. A few weeks ago, the owner of that food bank, Bishop John Francis and I visited St George’s cathedral, which has opened a food pantry. We need those services now, because people—including even those who are in work—are struggling to buy the basic things. The terminology “in-work poverty” should shame us. These people are working, yet they cannot make ends meet. Sadly, that is nothing new.
The fact is that for the past 13 years, my constituents and many across the country have been let down badly. Their local services have been cut to the bone, waiting times across our hospitals are out of control, and their wages are growing nine times slower than they were under the last Labour Government. They have been let down because this Government’s priorities are not the country’s priorities. This Government’s priority seems to be them and their friends, and that is sad. It is no wonder that so many people feel disillusioned with politics and think we do not care about their everyday issues.
I think about those people who come to my advice surgery begging for help and asking if the Government will listen to their claims and fund local councils so that basic services can be restored. When I was growing up, those services were there to help people, but they have now been decimated. Actions speak louder than words, and for proof of that we need only look at who the Prime Minister has brought back in. The key architect of the austerity measures is now back at the heart of Government. That shows that nothing has changed.
My constituents have been waiting far too long, and sadly this Government have shown time and again that they will not change and will not listen to people’s concerns. People are coming to us as their MPs to talk about their priorities, and it is important that we make sure those changes happen. Those priorities include building the homes required; ending zero-hours contracts so that people can have decency and a fulfilling job; ensuring that women can go back into the labour market with affordable childcare; and building affordable homes, as opposed to homes that no one can afford to buy. This Government say they will end no-fault eviction, yet at every opportunity they move the goalposts. People are being demonised just for their sexuality, yet the Government say, “We do not care.” I hope that the Government will listen and change, and recognise that this autumn statement does not help people in Vauxhall and across the country. The only thing that will help those people is a general election and a new Government.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
First, I applaud the Ministers in His Majesty’s Treasury. Sticking to electorally hard positions goes against the natural political grain, but doing so has halved inflation. The autumn statement has done a great deal for every man, woman and child in Clacton and the wider nation. Despite this all-consuming effort to tame the tiger of inflation, which is working, we have still managed to protect the £78 million that is being invested in Clacton. I thank the Government for listening to my repeated pleas to look after coastal communities. That is levelling up.
I welcome a number of the measures, but I do so in a cautious manner. First, I welcome the fact that we have protected and fulfilled our manifesto pledge to keep the pension triple lock in place. I have fought for the past three months to keep our commitment to pensioners, and I am thrilled that the effort has won out in the end.
The tax reliefs for the English freeports are being extended from five to 10 years, with an additional £150 million investment opportunity fund. That potentially is great news for the Harwich freeport, but serious connectivity issues need to be dealt with in Clacton. If the people from Jaywick in Clacton do not see the benefit of this economic expansion, I will regard the whole freeport thing as a failure. Economic growth, particularly when backed by the state, cannot come without societal good.
I would also like to have a word regarding the banks. I thought our central bank was painfully slow to respond to the blatantly obvious inflationary bubble post-covid. Our current rate of 5.25% is a result of the backdrop of being too low for too long, and the subsequent climb was far too incremental, starting in December 2021. Our high levels of interest at a time of falling inflation could well represent the banking sector profiting out of the Bank of England’s tardiness, and that cannot be right. The Bank of England needs to respond in a reasonable way or risk the ire of the business community and of this House. We need to lower interest rates as soon as possible, to save some of the businesses in my constituency that are on the brink.
The bulk of my comments, however, come directly from and relate to our wonderful sunshine coast in Clacton. I reached out to a number of businesses and promised to be their voice, fulfilling my pledge to be Clacton’s man in this place. Here is what they had to say. Gavin Smith of Hedingham and Chambers buses—a firm doing amazing work, and I want to help it do better—wanted me to tell the Treasury that the £2 billion for development of zero-emission buses technology is great news, and it wants to work with that.
Of course, employees will welcome the 2% NI cut, but the massive 25% corporation tax rate hits business hard. The Cameron-Osborne years, which were just referred to, proved that lower and competitive taxes yield more for the Treasury due to the stimulus that gives to investment in the private sector. We must return to that fact of life that we as Conservatives all know.
There is one clear voice of concern from the sunshine coast, and it is one that I support. The minimum wage increase to £11.44 is excellent for so many, but for more than two decades Governments have been using a disingenuous term. They say, “We are increasing pay”, but let us be clear that they are not increasing pay but telling others to increase pay. What does that mean in real terms? For Amazon, a firm that saw profits explode thanks to covid spurring online sales and which had $513 billion of global revenue in 2022, it means little. For leisure businesses such as the Lifehouse in Weeley, it is devastating. Peter Murphy, its chief executive officer, told me that it expected its fixed costs to increase by £500,000. The company is a model business—it employs locally, gives to charity, has regenerated historic grounds, and even its restaurant menus show where produce has been sourced from in the immediate area—but it faces extinction unless something is done.
Hospitality and social care are the mainstay of our economy in Clacton, and they are not like Amazon, which measures profits in tens and hundreds of millions or billions and can pay more without a second thought. These businesses have high human resource headcounts and have to live with very tight margins. We need to protect them from increasing costs.
In this day and age, to treat all private entities as if they have the same capacity is madness. The mandates should be like tax on profit—they should fall heavier on the broadest shoulders. I am fine with the idea of special taxation on certain giants to retire the covid debt, the interest on which is a millstone around the national neck, but we cannot pretend that wages are Government money. They are businesses’ money, and that is not inexhaustible.
With falling inflation and key investments, we are well on the way to recovery. However, the message from Clacton is that that recovery is led by businesses, not by Whitehall. That means we need get the costs off their backs and let them do what they do and know best.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am afraid that the autumn statement will have come as a disappointment to many living in my North Shropshire constituency and rural places across Britain. After years of mismanagement, the Conservative Government have left hard-working people to pay for their mistakes. Some elements of the statement were welcome, such as lifting the freeze on housing allowance and increasing the national living wage, but they will not change the daily reality for many of my constituents who are struggling with stealth tax hikes and spiralling mortgage repayments.
I turn first to the Chancellor’s announcement to increase the national living wage by almost 10%. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the increase for the lowest paid, but, for people in rural areas, it will not offset the impact of the cost of living crisis. People in rural Britain spend an average of £800 more a year on fuel because of poor public transport, and those who are off grid are still paying about twice the amount for their heating oil than they were before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I therefore urge the Government to support off-grid residents with their energy bills by implementing an off-grid energy cap so that those affected do not have to continue to choose between heating and eating.
The Chancellor has increased the living wage but failed to help local councils fund those increased wages. I have heard from councils run by all political parties that they are currently struggling to provide good services because of the crippling costs of social care, special educational needs and disabilities support, and temporary housing. Councils will have to pay either directly or to their contractors the cost of those increased wages, yet the Chancellor is asking them to find that money from their existing budgets.
That brings me to the closely related subject of social care. There were no announcements of any new investment in adult social care, or indeed children’s social care, in the Chancellor’s statement. For anyone who provides or receives social care, that will be incredibly worrying. Social care services are already under immense pressure, waiting lists for care assessments and provision are at all-time highs, and there are serious retention and recruitment problems in the sector—and they are especially acute in rural places such as Shropshire. Not only did the Chancellor fail to address that in his statement, but his unfunded announcement of an increase in the national living wage will only put further pressure on those services.
Shropshire Council has reported that it spends 85% of its budget on social care. Since I was elected, I have spent a significant amount of time talking to care providers in North Shropshire. They report struggling desperately to meet the need for care packages; they often cross-subsidise them through their private work. But care providers for adults with learning disability, autism spectrum disorder or lifelong high levels of need often do not have such private work, so with central Government not funding the increased wage costs—or local government unable to raise its own finance—there is a risk of a huge crisis in the sector. Crucially, a social care service under more pressure will have dangerous knock-on implications for bed availability in hospitals and—where I am, this is the most acute problem—ambulance waiting times.
After hearing the autumn statement, many people will feel they are about to relive last winter’s NHS nightmare, which the Government have repeatedly promised to prevent. For example, in the last week, NHS Shrewsbury, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board has urged my constituents to stay away from A&E if at all possible because it knows that the department will be under extreme pressure with limited bed availability. The root cause of that is in delays in discharging patients who are well enough to leave hospital. That will only be exacerbated if care providers are unable to recoup their staffing costs from the local authority paying them to provide that care. It is a disgrace that the Government have not recognised the desperate need for investment in adult social care, and as such hospitals are bracing for another incredibly difficult winter.
Conservative Ministers have not got a clue about how to get the economy back on track. They simply do not understand that a healthy economy needs a healthy population, and that requires a healthy NHS and a healthy care sector. The Tories have cut taxes for the big banks and let fossil fuel extractors off the hook from the windfall tax. Liberal Democrats urge the Government to look again at those taxes to fund the sectors that will allow the economy to grow again.
I turn to the Chancellor’s decision to lift the freeze on local housing allowance to support more households with paying their rent. I am sure that is good news for the 8.5 million people who the National Housing Federation estimated are living with unmet housing need this year. A lack of affordable and social housing is a real issue in North Shropshire, where the average house price is 8.6 times average earnings, according to the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, of which I am a member. About 175,000 people are on rural housing lists at the moment, and homelessness is increasing, especially among young people.
I draw the House’s attention to two key shortfalls to the announcement. First, the Chancellor did not commit to ruling out reinstating a freeze in the future, so the policy could be reversed, with the result that councils cannot easily plan ahead their financial budgets. Secondly, it did not apply to temporary accommodation, so the maximum subsidy will remain capped at 90% of rates in January 2011. In my constituency alone, the number of households living in temporary accommodation has more than doubled since 2018, placing yet more strain on council budgets.
Councils of all political parties have recently written an open letter to the Chancellor to explain the unprecedented demand for temporary accommodation and its associated astronomical increase in costs on their budgets. They need urgent clarification that housing allowance will not be frozen again in future and that they will be subsidised to manage this difficult problem going forward.
On mobile signal investment, I welcome the Government’s announcement that 10 regions will be awarded funding for 5G connection for businesses and residents. Mobile connection is an issue that I have significant personal experience with. A mobile signal is essential to a functioning community and paves the way for successful and growing businesses. It will surprise no one that all those areas of the UK that do not receive a 4G signal are classed as rural. Thirteen per cent of my constituency is a partial notspot, and 50% of indoor spaces in North Shropshire do not receive a 4G signal from any of the top four operators. That significantly impacts businesses in my constituency as they struggle to operate without a signal. Therefore, while 5G technology is welcome, I hope that the Government will understand that, to level up rural Britain, a 4G signal needs to be available first.
To conclude, I am worried about the stability of local government to provide essential services, the impact on the health service and the levelling-up of rural Britain.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is real pleasure to welcome a much more optimistic and extensive statement than I had thought. A few weeks ago, we heard stories that inflation was higher and stickier than we thought, interest rates were forecast to be higher for longer, and it could be a miserable statement to sit through. Then, we heard stories that we may not be able to increase pensions by the triple lock and benefits by inflation. Then, we heard the rumours that our priority was inheritance tax, and I thought I would be here opposing the autumn statement, but fortunately I can wholeheartedly welcome it.
My constituents will be particularly pleased by the support to pay their bills: the national living wage is up by nearly 10%, the state pension by 8.5% and benefits by the full rate of the consumer prices index from September. More unexpected was the increase in local housing allowance back to the 30th percentile, which is much needed. The system has been creaking, and we need to maintain it at that level. The Government should be commended for all those measures. On a local note, I welcome the investment zone announced for Derby, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. We look forward to seeing the full detail, but it looks to be positive for local growth. Businesses in my high streets and the hospitality sector will welcome the business rate reliefs that were announced.
I want to touch on three topics: the corporation tax changes, the pension changes and the various measures to make work pay. To give some certainty, we should have a long-term, predictable plan for what our tax system should look like, so I welcome the 2% reduction in national insurance down to a nice, round, easy-to-calculate 10p in the pound. That fits quite well with the 20p income tax rate, so we have a nice, neat 30p in the pound and people understand what they are paying. They know that if they earn more than £50,000, that goes up to 40p, and they have to add the 2p national insurance, or a bit less. That is a clear and predictable way of taxing people’s earnings.
Now, we need to work out where the starting points in the bands should be, because that has gone a bit out of control. We were trying to get to the stage where someone could earn the minimum wage and not pay any income tax, but that is now thousands of pounds away. I urge the Government, having made this welcome step, to set out a plan for setting a much higher starting point for paying income tax and national insurance. It should be heading back towards a point where someone working full time on the minimum wage does not pay much tax.
Equally, on corporation tax, the plan we had 13 years ago for a stable business tax system appears to have drifted away. I support the full expensing, but that is a pretty radical and permanent change to our corporation tax system. There is a huge compliance need for businesses to track all their fixed assets and split them between the general pool, the long-life asset pool, the short-life asset pool, the vehicles and the structures rules, working out what is a non-allowable structure and what is not. All those things are hugely complex. We are now allowing full expensing for the vast majority of spend. We should think about whether we need all those rules, or whether we could sweep them away and just have some anti-avoidance restrictions. What should we do with the legacy situation? It will be a bit bizarre to have full tax relief for the capital I have spent this year, but still having to work out and claim relief for what I spent 15 years ago, which is still working its way through the pool. That looks to be a long and unwieldy system. Could we find a way of running off those legacy balances a bit more quickly, so we can lose that complexity?
On the pensions changes, I support the pot for life approach that the Government are consulting on. The counter argument is that it takes away the link between employers and their employees’ pension, but the simple fact that we had to auto-enrol 10 million people into a workplace pension suggests that those employers were not bothered about the pension they gave their staff, because they were not giving them one at all. Trying to boost the individual’s engagement with their pension savings is a prize worth having. If someone moves job to an employer with a good pension scheme, they can choose to stay there—they do not have to stay in their pot for life. I think that we will need a clearing house to avoid costs on employers, because otherwise small employers with 12 employees will be left trying to work out how to pay 12 different pension schemes a month. That sounds a bit too complex.
I have been banging on for years that auto-enrolment has got stuck being cheap and easy for employers, but does not produce the best returning pension for savers, so I welcome the references in the Green Book to a new duty on employers to think about the quality of their pension scheme for their scheme members. That will help move auto-enrolment in the right direction to the best staff pension.
I largely welcome the various welfare changes. Clearly, it is right that a welfare system be conditional. People who can work and look after themselves and their families should do so, and to those who cannot we should give as much support as we possibly can. That is an undisputable foundation of the welfare system. However, it has gone a little out of kilter. Far too many people are successful at being out of work for life. We need to find a way of changing that. However, I would warn the Secretary of State to be cautious about the message that people get, because they tend to hear the bad news, not the good news. All the good news about extra support and the chance to work guarantee are drowned out by noise about stricter assessments. People still do not trust the system as they should. We should be careful not to lose the good messages in the necessary bad ones. The evidence shows that if people feel supported, trust the work coach they are working with and feel they have a predictable journey that supports them, they will engage with it. If they are worried that if they make a step and it does not work, and they are reassessed and tell the work coach, that will be used against them next time, they will not engage. We must tread carefully.
I accept the need to ensure that the work capability assessment is getting people in the right place. Only people who are never fit for work should be declared not ever fit for work. That has to be right, but I urge some caution in that language. I note the rather strange thing at the end, quite rightly reinstating the rule that if someone does not comply with the terms of the benefit, they lose the benefit. That rule was there pre-universal credit, and it is right, so I am not sure how it will cost £10 million a year to reintroduce it. Perhaps we have not scored that yet, and we will see that detail in future.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on raising relaunches to an art form that should be admired. It began in his conference speech, when he announced that he was the new agent of change. That lasted about a week of Tory party infighting. Then, we had the King’s Speech three weeks ago. There was no change in that; it was all very much the same from a Government who have run out of steam and ideas. Third time lucky: with the autumn statement he had a chance to turn the corner to improve our economy, invest in public services and support working people. But what did we get? A party political autumn statement, purely focused on attempting to move the dial of the opinion polls for the next general election.
The headline grabber was the national insurance cut, but it does not take an economist to work out that people will be paying more taxes. Going into the autumn statement, the increase in NI was about 10p. We have now been given back 2p, so to use the analogy of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) about cake, it was like taking the cake away and giving back two small slices. Then, because of the freezing of personal allowances later this year, not only will those two slices be taken again, but the Government will have everything else in the cake tin. Added to that, inflation is still high: in the last two years it has risen by 16%, with food inflation up 28%. The Prime Minister claims to have got inflation down, but it has had nothing to do with him—it is down to the Bank of England. That will not con people, because prices in the shops are still rising.
How did we get here? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said, the Government say it is, “Nothing to do with them, mate”. That has been the line all along. This has been the accumulation of 13 years of not only austerity but a way of dismantling the state. The criminal justice system is in absolute crisis; health is broken; local government is bleeding on its feet; education is in a dire situation. In local public health, drug and alcohol services and others have been slashed because of the effects of Government spending. We have had flatlining growth and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said, people paying more for less.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions tried to present a cuddly image, saying that the Government’s welfare changes were all about getting people into work. I have no problem with genuinely supporting people into work, but the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness let the cat out of the bag when he said that they were about changing people’s behaviour—as though people somehow choose to be on welfare. We just heard the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) say that he would get a bit nervous if the language around that gets too harsh, but that is exactly what the Conservatives are going into the election with. They will say, “We’ve cut taxes and we’re going to be hard on the feckless poor,” which is how they see people on welfare.
We are in this situation because of the pressures on people’s daily lives. The Secretary of State’s only suggestion on mental health was for more talking sessions. Well, I am sorry but if we do not replace the money for local government, social services and other infrastructure at a local level, mental health crises will increase. We have the ludicrous idea that the answer for people who are on welfare because of their mental health is to get them working from home. I support people with mental health issues going into work, but it must be the right type of work. The idea that sitting at home will help people’s mental health is, frankly, ridiculous.
I was shocked that there was no continuation of funding for the suicide prevention programme. Suicide is the biggest killer of men, but the programme will run out in March because there was no extra funding in the autumn statement. It would cost £1.40 per person to address that crisis, the shameful stigma of suicide and the suicide rates in this country, which are still far too high.
On local government, the Government’s botched announcement last week on levelling up came against the background of a sector that has had a 30% cut in its real-terms funding. Durham County Council has lost £262 million a year and the Government produce their shuffle trick and say, “Why aren’t you still producing services?”, implying that it is somehow inefficient. The cost is then moved on to local council tax payers. This is part of the Conservative Government’s deliberate strategy over the past 13 years of dismantling those parts of the state that we have always recognised as being vital to the coherence of our local communities.
I want to raise one issue relating to sub-postmasters. People know that I have been campaigning for them for well over 13 years. I just hope that money is set aside in the Treasury for full compensation. On a personal note, the person who got me into this, my constituent Tom Brown, unfortunately passed away last night. Tom was prosecuted by the Post Office. He will not get justice. He goes to his grave without the justice that he deserves—one of far too many.
There is no change in the autumn statement. It is time for change, as other colleagues have said. The only way we will rebuild Britain, rebuild our communities and rebuild the state—not a state that tells us what to do, but a state that is there for our constituents and our communities—is if we have a general election and elect a Labour Government.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, not least because the Chancellor confirmed, as many of us predicted, that the Government would not just meet the target of halving inflation by the end of the year, but do significantly better. Forecasting is, of course, never an exact science. As the OBR report says:
“The economy has proved to be more resilient to the shocks of the pandemic and energy crisis than anticipated.”
That is probably the closest we will get to, “Sorry, we got it wrong,” from the OBR. It got the baseline so badly wrong, with GDP standing 3% higher, it has had to revise down rates of subsequent growth to take account of the higher starting point. Even then, it still admits that GDP will be 0.5% higher than the March forecasts. That has enabled the autumn statement to reflect the success of the Government’s policies, delivering the largest tax cuts since the ’80s. This is an autumn statement for jobs and growth, putting more money in people’s pockets, helping people to keep more of the money they earn and ensuring that work always pays.
Last Friday, I held a jobs and advice fair for the over-50s in my constituency, helping scores of people who were looking for new employment, skills or training opportunities. Local employers have hundreds of vacancies right now, so boosting skills and addressing employment gaps is vital. For employers, I particularly welcome the largest tax cuts in modern history. Full expensing being made permanent is absolutely what industries in Stoke-on-Trent need, and it will significantly encourage further investment in prosperity and jobs growth.
There are more jobs available in Stoke-on-Trent than people unemployed, so the autumn statement’s focus on getting people into meaningful work is very welcome. As we know, the routine of a meaningful working life is beneficial to mental health, but that can be tragically hard to see for some suffering from severe mental health challenges and other health challenges. I am sure we have all had heartbreaking conversations with constituents in that position, and of course there should always be the support in place for those who need it most, but all the evidence tells us that it is right that we support them into the security of work and help them to improve their condition, because work can make a huge difference in helping people get over both health issues and mental health issues. The expansion of the individual placement and support scheme, providing intensive and tailored expert support for those with severe challenges, is welcome, as is the expansion of talking therapies for those with moderate and mild conditions.
It is right to reform the fit note process, so that treatment is prioritised over time off. In total, £1.3 billion over five years will help 700,000 people with health conditions to find jobs: good for the economy, good for employers and, most importantly, good for them and their families. It is not being cruel to be kind; it is being kind to be kind. It is only if that kindness and support is rejected that sanctions, reluctantly, will have to be used as a last resort. For those who are capable of working but refuse to do so—those who do not engage—I think most of our constituents would want us to ensure that action is taken to support them into work. Indeed, the Chancellor has ensured that the carrots, as it were, for being in work have increased across the board. The cuts in national insurance payments, the increase in the national living wage and the increase in the minimum apprenticeship wage are all welcome, making work the most attractive option, alongside uprating benefits and the state pension.
I was very happy to hear the Chancellor say that that is as much a moral imperative as an economic one. This is about fairness for everyone. No one should be written off and left on the scrapheap, as we saw with so many under the last Labour Government. Equally, no area should be left behind and the levelling-up agenda that we have enjoyed since Brexit must continue to deliver meaningful change. The UK has grown faster than other countries throughout Europe, but we must ensure that every single part of the UK, including communities in Stoke-on-Trent, benefit from that increased prosperity. That includes the transforming cities fund package, generously funded by the Government but delayed by covid—and, I have to say, by Network Rail and Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Shockingly, the city council’s current Labour leadership has even delayed our levelling-up projects, revisiting some of them and revising down some of the ambition that will have a massive impact on what we were hoping to deliver. The ambitious leadership we need for our city is very much lacking when it comes to the Labour administration at the council.
That must not happen to our restoring your railway projects under the Network North proposals. We, as Conservative MPs who are leading the bids, are absolutely focused on ensuring we deliver on reopening Meir station and the Stoke to Leek line. It is vital that we invest in improving our local transport—our vital local rail, road and bus links. Where the autumn statement delivers, rewarding work and putting more money in people’s pockets, so the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2 must deliver transport improvements to help communities in Stoke-on-Trent and across north Staffordshire to better access work and skills opportunities. That investment will put the money that was going to be wasted on phase 2 into things that will make a real difference, ensuring that we connect communities and deliver access to employment opportunities. That will deliver the step change that we need in local rail, road and bus connections. That is vital for communities like Meir in my constituency and right across Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire.
Together, these measures will unleash employment growth and help us to level ourselves back up to where we belong, supporting our fantastic, world-leading industries —our manufacturing industries, on which our city was built—ensuring that we can deliver growth in jobs and employment, ensuring that work is rewarded through improvements in pay and conditions, and ensuring that people have access to better employment opportunities in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As I still have to get 16 speakers in, I shall have to reduce the speaking time limit to six minutes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
There is much in the autumn statement on which I could comment, but I want to focus on one area. Having heard what was said by my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I was tempted to say the same, for I shall be touching on very similar themes.
Like many people, I hear regularly from disabled constituents who are desperately worried about their finances and their benefits. They feel that DWP assessments are designed to catch them out rather than help them, when it is appropriate, into good employment. For them, the autumn statement has been a source of great anxiety, with fears that the Government are doubling down on a culture that many have experienced as inflexible, ineffective, and even downright callous. Debra, a constituent who contacted me this weekend, has been on PIP and ESA for a long time, owing to a debilitating lifelong illness, and is now desperately worried that she will find herself in difficult circumstances as a result of the changes. There is an urgent need for the Government to clarify the details and put more flesh on the bones so that constituents like Debra are not worried sick about what will happen to them in the future.
Of course people who are able to work should be provided with the right support to help them to do so, because, as my right hon. Friend said, a job can be a source of structure and self-esteem, and people with mental health problems in particular are especially sensitive to the negative effects of unemployment. Crucially, however, as we have also heard, these jobs need to be good and appropriate. Insecure, demanding and low-paid work can be as bad for a person’s mental health as unemployment.
Last week, during a television interview, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that disabled people must “do their duty” and work from home, but figures from the Office for National Statistics show that only 16% of adults currently work exclusively from home in any given week, and that people are more likely to be able to work from home if they are in the highest income band and educated to degree level or above—groups to which people who suffer severely from mental illness, for example, are statistically less likely to belong.
I fear that disabled people competing for a small pool of fully remote jobs will find themselves pushed even further into poor-quality and insecure work. For others, particularly those with mental health problems, there is a risk that being pushed into homeworking will only serve to compound their social isolation and their difficulty in paying bills. We must be clear about the fact that while we need to provide better access to remote working, it cannot be a substitute for access to good-quality, hands-on support.
I want to say something about sanctions, because there is a well-established link between losing benefits, facing serious hardship and experiencing a deterioration in mental health, sometimes causing hospital admission. Previous research has established that people who are sanctioned also take longer to move into paid work, and that when they do, their earnings are lower. We need a holistic approach that covers the impact of the colossal NHS waiting lists—in particular those for mental health treatment, which are preventing many people from being able to work. We cannot ignore that fact when considering this issue. We need to consider the impact of young people’s experiences of education and living in poverty, and how they accumulate to exclude them from access to good jobs.
Along with mental health charities, I welcome the extension of the NHS individual placement and support scheme to provide intensive employment support for people with severe mental health problems, but I hope that the Government will consider the merits of that approach for more common mental health conditions, as well as taking a broader view of the factors that impede employment among people with poor mental health. Sadly, as we have heard, we did not see any new proposals for evidence-based preventive programmes, and I am particularly disappointed that we did not see the continuation of the vital funding to support local suicide prevention plans that is set to run out this year. As we have also heard, the cost of retaining that vital service is very small. The need for a public health approach to mental health has never been greater, and we need the Government to assess and show an understanding of the traumas that people have experienced, rather than creating new ones.
Finally, I want to say a little about childcare. Having spoken to staff at a nursery in my constituency, I know there is a real fear that the Government’s plans are not meeting the costs that are needed to provide high-quality childcare, and something must be done about that.
The Tories are desperately looking for a reset moment, but it is not the autumn statement.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As someone who spent many years in business myself, I will begin there. We started our family business back in 1991 with an enterprise allowance of £40 a week from the Government. It is not possible to make business risk-free, but it is possible to create the conditions that support entrepreneurs. SMEs are the real wealth creators of our economy, and in this, the week leading up to small business Saturday, I am proud to support those in my constituency. Microbusinesses, with up to nine employees, constitute 89% of the businesses in my constituency. These are the people who get up early in the morning, put in the hard yards, and take risks with their money. They are the backbone of local economies.
I welcome the measures in the autumn statement that back British business, such as the extension of rates relief for the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. Freezing alcohol duty will help the local micropubs, such as The Turtles Head, that are the heart and soul of so many communities. Measures on class 2 and class 4 national insurance contributions to help the self-employed are also welcome. However, we need to continue to look at ways in which to go further. The extension of full expensing will be welcomed by the larger companies, but I fear that it will make little difference to too many small businesses. That is why I feel that we need a cut in corporation tax from its current high rate of 26% to its former level of 19%. That, I think, would be another tool to lead us towards the growth that we all want to see.
The increase in the national living wage will be greatly welcomed by many employees, but some businesses and community organisations in my constituency tell me of the challenges that it will pose to them. For some, it will risk pushing up prices to service users. I therefore urge the Government to exercise a bit of caution, and to continue to look at that balance.
As for personal taxation, I welcome the 2% cut in the main rate of employee national insurance from 6 January next year, which will bring relief to some 27 million workers, but I think we should recognise that we must not stop there. With wages rising, there is a real risk that people will pay more income tax. Let us not forget about the need to go on looking at the tax-free allowance thresholds—and I, for one, will be continuing to push for increases. I feel that that makes sense, because we need to address the fiscal drag.
Turning to welfare reform, the commitment to the triple lock will mean a fantastic 8.5% increase from the start of April 2024, which is equivalent to £900 a year. I know that that will help the pensioners in my constituency, and that is good news. The plan to work is also welcome. It is just not fair for the majority of British people to work while some people think they can get away without working. The key to employment is the Government working with training providers, education providers and employers, with everyone working closely together to understand where the skills gaps are today and where they are likely to be in the future. Our young people, our students and those returning to work later in life need a pathway of apprenticeships and education that will lead them smoothly and successfully into a job.
In the west midlands, we are fortunate to have our brilliant Mayor, Andy Street, who absolutely understands that. The announcement of three new investment zones, including one in the west midlands, is especially welcome, providing the opportunity to drive £5.5 billion of growth across our region and creating 30,000 new jobs. The autumn statement also seals the deal on the single settlement to provide the deeper devolution deal that we want and to end what has been described as a begging-bowl culture for so many devolved areas. That settlement has been pioneered by our west midlands Mayor, Andy Street.
The decision to invest a further £50 million in apprenticeship pilot schemes will be invaluable too. I note that the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), is nodding on the Front Bench, and I remind him that he is welcome to come to Aldridge-Brownhills to visit our apprenticeship provider. It is important that we do not neglect the traditional industries, which still provide an economic powerhouse in places such as the Black Country. We cannot afford to leave those communities and businesses behind. Our ambition of levelling up will be fully realised only when we embrace all sectors of industry, whether new or traditional.
The focus on supply-side reform is also much needed to deliver growth, particularly in areas such as planning, but I caution Ministers that, while that is welcome, we must ensure that our local authorities have the planning expertise and capacity to deal with the applications. I also ask Ministers to consider extending any such new policy practices to other organisations—for example, the Environment Agency. We have a situation in my constituency where it is taking up to 71 weeks just to validate permits and licences, so I am rather hoping that someone on the Front Bench or in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have taken note of that and will come back to me on it.
In a time of continued global uncertainty, especially given the war in Ukraine, I welcome our commitment to spending 2% of our GDP on defence. I also welcome the extra commitment of £10 million to support the Veterans’ Places, Pathways and People programme. We have moved the dial forward, and I am sure we will continue to move it further forward.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is difficult to know whether what we had last week was an autumn statement or a pre-election mini-Budget. It was big on promises and very optimistic, but the growth figures are disappointing and inflation is falling slowly—very slowly. The Chancellor says he is putting money in people’s pockets, despite the Bank of England wanting us to spend less. He has agreed to freeze the small business rates multiplier for another year, but the increase in the minimum wage, though welcome for employees, will largely offset any benefits that businesses gain from the rates freeze.
Claire, the enterprising woman who runs Aspire, a hair and beauty treatment business in my Selly Oak constituency, has told me that this will mean gaining on business rates but losing on wage increases. Claire—who, through her own efforts and determination, has opened not one but two shops and held her business together during the pandemic by sheer hard work and creative advertising on social media—does not begrudge her 15 staff a wage increase. She acknowledges that they need it, but despite working all the hours she can, she has to accept less for her and her family because she cannot increase prices; otherwise, she will shrink her customer base, because they are all struggling with the cost of living crisis.
The Chancellor wants to be seen as promoting growth and cutting taxes, yet the tax burden is at its highest since the second world war, living standards are set to fall 3.5% below pre-pandemic levels—the worst reduction since the 1950s—and growth is at 0.6% compared with 2.1% in the United States, 2.5% in Spain, 2.3% in Portugal, 2% in Ireland and 1% in France. It is also hard to reconcile the image of tax-cutting Tories with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast that 4 million people are going to end up paying more tax due to fiscal drag. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, no Parliament has presided over larger tax increases since the 1950s. Who would have expected nurses and police inspectors to be paying the top rate of tax? They are hardly wealthy.
The Chancellor claims that he has reduced the debt. He has; it is now a mere £2.7 trillion and projected to be about 98.6% of GDP and not the 100% that he feared. But even this wonderful feat has only been achieved by sleight of hand, as he has excluded Bank of England debt from his figures. The much-vaunted national insurance reduction of £450 pales into insignificance when set against monthly rises in mortgage payments of £300 or more. Higher interest rates, and therefore higher mortgage repayments, are expected to hit around 4 million families. Against this harsh reality, it turns out that the Chancellor is barely giving working people enough back to be able to afford a weekly portion of fish and chips.
There are also too many households with nothing put away for a rainy day. Our savings ratio is lower than competitors such as Germany and France, and mortgage payment increases are estimated to take the number of households with no savings to around 7 million. That is one in four UK households. And where was the update on the energy social tariff, promised in last year’s autumn statement? It turns out that not even the consultation has taken place, so this winter people relying on medical devices will have to make a choice. Many of those with disabilities and with conditions that react badly to the cold will suffer as they struggle with higher bills.
The Chancellor’s big offer for businesses is full expensing, in what he called the largest tax cut for businesses in modern history. For every £1 million a business invests, it will get £250,000 off its tax bill in the same year. Alas, it is hard to find any estimate of just how many businesses will benefit. Can the Minister say just how many companies he expects to replace £1 million-worth of plant and machinery in a single year? Even those that do benefit will still suffer due to corporation tax.
For many businesses, the rise in the minimum wage will be accompanied by a 6.7% increase in business rates, adding to the pressure on them at a time when supplies, raw materials and other costs are increasing but their prices are not, all of which puts pressure on jobs. I have yet to come across a company in my constituency that appears to qualify for any energy support from this Government. It does not matter if it is the excellent Howard Yarnold, a family firm that specialises in the design, manufacture and fitting of commercial and domestic windows, Loaf, the popular organic bakery, or Aspire, which I have mentioned—nobody gets any help. If this was a plan for jobs and enterprise, it has failed.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Before beginning my critique, I would like to welcome some of the Chancellor’s announcements. First, I welcome the decision to maintain the benefits calculation based on September’s inflation figure. Considering that energy and food prices are still rising, it would have been callous to change policy, as was briefed beforehand. I also welcome the increase in the minimum wage for those on the lowest wages and the unfreezing of the local housing allowance, albeit I read over the weekend that the unfreezing is only a temporary measure.
On moving those on disability benefits back to work via home employment opportunities, I agree that, if these opportunities exist, we need to help people by offering tailored support. In my view, these reforms would have fitted better within a wider Government strategy to promote homeworking.
I also welcome the extension to business investment relief. The UK faces chronic, long-term productivity challenges, and a key part of addressing them is encouraging businesses to invest for the future. Regrettably, this was not complemented by extra support for public investment. There was no increase in the Government’s capital budget, which has been frozen at a pathetic 1% of GDP. Surely this has to be increased to address our productivity challenges, with the investment targeted at those parts of the UK that have historically underperformed.
The Resolution Foundation estimates that the UK’s approach to public investment represents
“an institutional failure of the British state”.
It says that, had the UK followed the OECD average over the last two decades, an extra £500 billion would have been pumped into the UK economy, resulting in long-term economic benefits.
In the autumn statement, the Government claimed credit for halving inflation since its peak, thereby meeting one of their self-proclaimed key priorities for this year. Inflation at over 4% means that prices are still rising, of course—they are just rising at a slower rate. This means that, next year, energy costs are forecast to be around twice as high as they were before the price spike. I am disappointed that there was nothing in the autumn statement to help the most vulnerable with their bills. With higher energy prices, the Treasury is raking in extra revenue from VAT. Surely some of that revenue could have been used to provide a scheme to help those in dire need.
Furthermore, the OBR report indicates that inflation will remain higher for longer than predicted in its March forecast. As the OBR states, the assumption is that interest rates will remain higher than forecast, at a time when the central bank estimates that over half the impact of the rate rises over the past two years has yet to be felt. The OBR report indicates that economic growth will be slower than even its March forecast, with GDP growth estimated to be only 0.6% this year and 0.7% next year. It states that cumulative real growth from 2023 to 2027 will be 2.4% lower than forecast in March.
The OBR’s revised figures on real household disposable income indicate that living standards will fall at the fastest rate since records began in the 1950s. Living standards will not recover to the pre-pandemic level until 2027-28. The Resolution Foundation estimates that the average worker will be £1,900 worse off in real terms at the end of this Parliament compared with the start.
The real income of the average worker lags way behind the OECD average. Whereas the OECD average for real wage growth between the financial meltdown in 2008 and 2023 was a measly 8.8%, the UK is firmly in the relegation zone at only 2.7%. Such has been the weakness of wage growth that the Resolution Foundation estimates that the average worker is £11,000 per annum worse off after 15 years of wage stagnation, following the financial crash of 2008, compared with pre-2008 trends.
The proverbial rabbit in the hat was the higher-than-expected two percentage point cut to national insurance. This comes at a cost of £46.8 billion per annum over the forecasting period, according to the Treasury’s figures. However, the Chancellor did not comment on the impact of freezing income tax allowances and thresholds, which has resulted in a tax bonanza for the Treasury as a result of so-called fiscal drag. If my understanding of the OBR report is correct, fiscal drag will result in more than £201 billion of extra revenue for the Treasury over the next six financial years. That is the economic equivalent of nabbing the electorate’s wallet and expecting them to be grateful that a fiver has been placed in their pocket.
Once again, the OBR report highlighted the harm that Brexit has caused to the economy. It found that long-term trade intensity will be reduced by 15% as a result of the UK Government’s decision to operate outside the European economic frameworks. Meanwhile, it also found that the flagship post-Brexit trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, will add only 0.04% to GDP in the long run. Despite this major elephant in the room, we face an election in which no UK political party is willing to entertain the one obvious economic move that could be taken to improve matters for the country, namely reintegrating economically as much as possible with the rest of our continent.
The political debate between the parties in this place has completely converged on the economy. As we face an election, the obvious question is where will future growth come from? Public investment is at historically low levels, exports are struggling as a result of a kamikaze Brexit, and consumer spending is likely to remain suppressed as living standards decline. In this environment, it is a bit far-fetched to expect business investment to step up and fill the void. I wish the official Opposition well when they inherit the mess in front of us.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
As ever, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the people in my community of Pontypridd and Taff Ely in today’s autumn statement debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on a storming speech at the Dispatch Box this afternoon and thank her for sharing the inspirational story about the challenge faced by David’s son in trying to access employment. People with neurodiversity have an abundance of skills to contribute to our economy and to the workplace, but they need a proper pathway and a proper plan for suitable work for everyone. David and I have something in common: not only are we exasperated by this Government, but we are both parents to children with autism. Although my son is not going to be entering the workplace any time soon, I hope that he does so under a Labour Government here in Westminster, so that he, like everyone, has the opportunities and aspirations to achieve a decent world of work.
To be frank, the feeling in Pontypridd is crystal clear: the Government’s plan simply is not working. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have promised to get the economy growing, but instead it is flatlining. Working people and households have been hit with rising prices for their food and utilities, and the Government should be ashamed that so many people across the country can no longer afford the basics. Leadership starts at the top, but the Prime Minister seems to be more concerned about securing his future employment and appeasing the likes of billionaires such as Elon Musk than supporting ordinary working people across Britain. Only the Labour party is serious about growing the economy. It is clear to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) is utterly determined to make working people in all parts of the country better off by growing the economy, boosting wages and bringing down bills. Let’s face it: this Government cannot even get the basics right.
Labour’s better-off plan will cut household bills by up to £3,000 a year over the next decade. I am proud that it is this party, on these Benches, that has a clear path forward. It is the absolute least that people across the UK deserve after far too many years of false promises and distraction from this Government. Over the next decade, Labour’s better-off plan will save families £500 a year by insulating homes to make them more energy efficient. People will also save £900 a year as we build cheaper, cleaner power across the country through the creation of Great British Energy, a new, publicly owned clean generation company. For homeowners, £1,200 a year on mortgage bills will be saved by our building 1.5 million homes over a Parliament to keep housing affordable.
The Chancellor’s top lines, well-rehearsed as they are, simply cannot conceal the truth, because it is crystal clear that this Government have presided over 13 years of economic failure. When I speak to people across my area, the message is crystal clear: enough is enough. Colleagues on the Benches opposite must know the reality; rats and sinking ships come to mind. Economic growth has been revised down for next year, the year after and the year after that. None of the Chancellor’s announcements will come as any form of compensation to undo the damage done by a flailing economy. We all saw it with our own eyes and felt it in our own pockets. The Conservative party oversaw the near collapse of the entire British economy last year, which was a disaster for businesses and individuals. Only Labour can be trusted on the economy and we have a plan from day one. That includes supporting our high streets, which have been utterly neglected at the hands of this Government.
I have repeatedly warned in this place of my frustrations over the closure of banks on the high street. Last week, yet another high street bank announced that it is shutting its doors and abandoning customers in Pontypridd. This time it is NatWest, but over the last few years HSBC, Lloyds and Barclays have all shut up shop too. The Chancellor claims that his plans will put more money in people’s pockets. How ironic will it be if the banks continue to disappear and access to cash becomes a thing of the past? In my maiden speech, I said how proud we were in Pontypridd to have the Royal Mint in our constituency. It is not lost on me that my constituency makes all of the coins in the country yet we see far too little investment or money in people’s pockets. So I urge the Government to think carefully about the desperate position in which this is putting people who require access to face-to-face banking services and access to cash. What plans do this Government have to compel banks to do the right thing and stay on our high streets to support businesses and vulnerable people who rely on their services? We have supported the banks and they should support us. My fear is that there is no plan.
Let us be clear: people across the country deserve so much better. We have an unelected Prime Minister and unelected Foreign Secretary, and manifesto commitments broken and abandoned one after another. Is it any wonder that people in the country are crying out for change. It is clear among the people up and down this country that they want a general election—they need a general election. They cannot afford any more years of this Tory Government. It is time for serious change, because this Government have played hard and fast with people's finances for far too long and we are all paying the price. Enough is enough.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who made a powerful speech about her constituency. I share her frustration about bank closures on high streets. Like many Members across the Chamber, I have experienced the disaster of bank closures and the way that affects constituents’ ability to access their banks. It should not be like that—our high streets need investment and should be invested in.
The autumn statement should improve our economy and, most importantly, tackle the cost of living crisis, but it simply does not do that. The Government seem unaware that growth has been downgraded for the next three years. This will be the biggest tax-raising Parliament on record and we have seen the biggest hit to living standards on record. Local authorities continue to be on their knees in public service provision. Although I welcome the announcements to honour the triple lock in the state pension and to raise benefits in line with September inflation figures, I have significant concerns about many areas of the statement.
I am concerned about aspects of Government policy around getting people back into work. Dr Roger Barker, director of policy at the Institute of Directors, states:
“We would like to have seen more substantive measures to address the problem of skills shortages, which continue to be a problem for our members.”
It seems as if the Government are ignoring skills shortages that prevent people from moving from one job to another, or into certain jobs altogether. Many people are asking what will happen to those people who are penalised and whether people with disabilities will be disproportionately affected, as that is not clear.
Because of time constraints, I will focus on NHS waiting lists. Surely it makes sense to invest in getting people well and back to work, so they can be free from pain, able to function and do their desired job. There are a shocking 7.8 million people on NHS waiting lists and 2.6 million people are out of work because of long-term sickness, so surely it makes sense to focus on investing in the NHS—that cannot be said enough.
If the Government are serious about getting people into work, I ask them, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassemia, to focus on sickle cell. It is the UK’s most common and fastest growing genetic disorder, yet one of the least researched. I encourage the Government to invest in research into sickle cell, which historically has had less investment compared with many other conditions. I ask the Government to call for dedicated sickle cell research by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and other UK research institutes.
Constituents who are in work often email me to say that once they have paid their rent and their energy bills, they do not have enough to meet their basic needs. Before coming to this place, I set up the Whitefoot and Downham Community Food Plus Project, which tackles food poverty. Although it is a success, foodbanks should not be a norm in our society. However, I feel they have become an acceptable norm to the Government, although not to Members on the Opposition Benches. We demand that people have the right to food. People need to be able to choose and buy food, but they also need to pay for fuel, rent and mortgages. These are the priorities of many of my residents.
Labour has a plan to cut household bills by up to £3,000 a year over the next decade. Labour is the party to take people out of poverty and to ensure everyone is better off. It is time for a general election.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). They both made powerful speeches about the importance of getting this country back on the right track.
Last week, in what I hope will be the final autumn statement of this out-of-date Conservative Government, the Chancellor lifted the lid on 13 years of Conservative economic failure. My constituents in Newport West and people across the country were told to expect an autumn statement for growth, but instead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, growth has been revised down next year, the year after and the year after that. Indeed, the UK economy would now be £150 billion bigger if it had continued to grow at the same rate as when Labour was in power up until 2010. Rather than delivering a plan for growth and a plan to properly get our country back on track, we were left with the full scale of the damage that this Government have done to our economy over 13 years. Nothing that was announced in the autumn statement will remotely compensate for the pain and suffering my constituents have had to endure.
A constituent wrote to me last week:
“I am a student midwife and a single mum. I live in my parents’ house as I cannot afford to rent a house in the current market. We actually spend some nights in my converted van. As you can imagine, living with your parents aged 42 with a child is difficult.”
She goes on to say:
“I have friends on benefits who would love to train as nurses or midwives, but they are afraid of being financially disabled, so stuck in a vicious cycle of low-paid jobs claiming benefits. It is like the Tory Government want people to be unskilled and poor instead of thriving and skilled. I would love to be part of that change.”
That is what she said to me. This is exactly what we need: a Government who invest in and upskill our people; a Government who do not walk by on the other side; and a Government who care.
After 13 years of the Conservatives, the economy simply is not working. Debt as a proportion of GDP will be 28% higher next year than it was when the Tories came to power. Worse than that, debt is forecast to surpass £3 trillion for the first time ever. I look forward to seeing that achievement writ large on the side of the Tory campaign bus when the election comes.
The people of Newport West know that this 13-and-a-half-year-old Government are presiding over the biggest tax-raising Parliament on record. Measures announced by the Chancellor last week are equivalent to handing back £1 for every £8 of the rise in tax since 2019-20.
With the freeze in the personal tax allowance threshold, a couple on an average wage will still be £350 worse off per year, even after the autumn statement. The freezing of tax thresholds, or “fiscal drag”, is set to raise £44.6 billion by 2028-29, with nearly 4 million more people paying income tax and 3 million more paying the higher rate.
We know that the Conservatives are the party of high taxes, low investment and no growth, and we will not let them forget it. Despite all the promises made by Lord Cameron, and every Prime Minister who has come after him, working people up and down this country are still worse off. The number of emergency food parcels distributed by Trussell Trust food banks has shamefully increased in Newport West. I pay tribute to all the volunteers who give their time to ensure that those in need do have some food on their table. In 2018, the total number of parcels distributed between April and September was 1,971. In the same period this year, it is 3,041. More and more people in Newport West are desperate for help and more and more people need a Government in Westminster who will actually get things done for them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again, this Prime Minister and his friends have let down the people of Newport West, of Wales and of our United Kingdom. The only way—the best way—to change course, to deliver for our people and to move forward is with a Labour Government, and the sooner the better.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
In his autumn statement last week, the Chancellor announced plans to compel people living with long-term physical and mental health conditions and disabilities to find work, and to increase sanction penalties, which the Government have said will involve people losing access to free NHS prescriptions and legal aid. Claimants who do not find a job within 18 months will be forced to undergo mandatory work placements, while those failing to comply with the rules face having their benefits cut. The Chancellor said that the work capability assessment—the test used to determine whether someone is “fit for work”—will be reformed to reflect the availability of homeworking.
This situation is both cruel and distressing. We should be asking what more needs to be done to support our most vulnerable members of society, not seeing how harshly we can penalise them. The Disability Benefits Consortium, a national coalition of more than 100 charities, described the plan as a
“cynical attack on disability benefits that will have a devastating impact on those on the lowest incomes”.
Just one in 10 jobs advertised this year has offered homeworking as an option, while access to support, which might help to keep people in work for longer, including mental health support and social care, is already strained and absolutely cut to ribbons. The reality is that the Chancellor last week set out a plan that will ramp up sanctions and further demonise disabled people. Dr Sarah Hughes, the chief executive of Mind, said in response to the autumn statement:
“The reality is that the vast majority of people with mental health problems want to work but are consistently let down by poor support across the board…the UK government must urgently rethink these plans.”
I fully support those views, and those expressed by Disability Rights UK, an organisation run by and for disabled people, which responded to the Chancellor’s plans by saying:
“For the past few months there has been a seemingly relentless attack on vulnerable, long-term sick and Disabled people on benefits…For Disabled and vulnerable people benefits are essential to survive financially. The fact is that for many people, benefits is their sole income because work is not an option. For those who could and want to work vague threats around the removal of benefits, removal of free prescriptions and sanctions if not accepting the first job offered are not helping, in fact they are causing those already in the throes of long-term ill health and lifelong disability to suffer worsening health issues.
The benefits system is the fault here, not the recipient. The UN special rapporteur on poverty and human rights said in 2018 that the UK benefits system could be branded ‘cruel and inhuman’…calling cuts to the welfare system ‘ideological’ and ‘tragic’.”
A famous quote from Gandhi comes to mind:
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
Tragically, once again the Government do not come close to measuring up. Once again, they are using the benefit system to target and humiliate the country’s most vulnerable people. Last week, the political editor of the Liverpool Echo, Liam Thorp, wrote:
“The images of the emaciated body of six-stone Stephen Smith, a desperately unwell man who was denied vital benefits before his tragic death, left an indelible mark on my mind and the minds of many others. Stephen was one of many victims of a cruel, government-led culture that targets the vulnerable and punishes those in our society who need support.”
At six stone, Stephen won his tribunal with the help of the much-missed Terry Craven against the Department for Work and Pensions, on its decision to declare him fit for work and deny him vital benefits. Stephen was the victim of a cruel welfare system. As the Government plan their latest attack on claimants, they show that they have learned absolutely nothing from his tragic death.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
I will make some brief remarks on the tone of the autumn statement and the expectations that it creates in contrast with the reality that so many face at home in Selby and Ainsty.
First, on wages and personal taxation, the Chancellor appears bullish that a 2% cut to national insurance or a £1-an-hour increase in the minimum wage is enough for a nurse in South Milford, a shop worker in Selby or a teacher in Riccall, but local people in my constituency need only look at their bank balances, mortgage rates or receipts at the till to see how empty those supposedly generous promises are. A £1-an-hour minimum wage increase will not touch the sides for families when food inflation remains at 10%. Parents will keep putting items back on the shelf at the supermarket, and shoplifting for staples such as baby formula will continue to rise—formula for which, incidentally, the price has risen by 45% in the past two years. A 2% increase in national insurance amounts to little when the Government have already implemented tax rises equivalent to a 10% NI increase since the last election.
The Government have presided over the largest fall in living standards since records began, and this is the first Parliament in modern British history where people will be worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. In the face of that damning context, the Government should come clean about the fact that their announcements will do little to offset the high-tax, high-interest-rate, high-inflation economic reality that the Conservative party has created.
Secondly, we should, it appears, be grateful for the hard choices that the Chancellor has made to create the headroom for these measures—as if decreasing inflation had been achieved by the party that wilfully endorsed the catastrophic mini-Budget of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) last year, and not by the efforts of the Bank of England and the economic sacrifice of mortgage holders across Selby and Ainsty, and across the rest of our country.
The deeper point is that these tax cuts are not pain free. Instead, they will be financed by baking in an era of austerity that the Resolution Foundation has called “implausible”. This is an irresponsible Chancellor, dodging the hard choices and leaving a future Government to foot the bill. He said that
“borrowing is just a deferred tax on future generations.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 328.]
However, I need not remind one of the architects of the austerity agenda that spending cuts that are too deep will drain Britain of its productive capacity, continue to stifle growth, and cause the poorest in our society to suffer. Once again it will be my generation who are forced to pay the price for this decade of Tory recklessness.
The Secretary of State has announced that we are leaning into an era of “compassionate” government as a result of this autumn statement, so I turn to the work capability assessment and the reforms that will, in the words of an executive member of the charity Scope,
“ramp up sanctions and demonise disabled people.”
The Government have an obligation to solve the long-term labour shortages and economic inactivity that prevent economic growth. Instead, their reforms amount to little more than a transparent gimmick that will punish the most vulnerable in society while the Government do too little to address the sky-high waiting lists that hold back our labour market.
Despite their claims to be the voice of change, this autumn statement shows that we are dealing with the same old Conservatives. People in Selby and Ainsty pay more to get less, and the most vulnerable suffer along the way. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said it best when she asked whether people would
“feel better off after 13 years of Conservative Government”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 342.]
and another piecemeal autumn statement. The answer, for mortgage holders, business owners, young families, doctors, nurses, teachers and all those who rely on our public services, is a resounding no. As ever, we repeat the call for this Government to call a general election to deliver the Labour Government that the people of Selby and Ainsty so desperately need.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to the statement last week, Mark Drakeford, the Welsh First Minister, said that
“we urgently needed long-term investment in our public services and growth in our economy”.
He was right. This statement delivers some of the last gasps of the Tory Government. As has already been said, the Chancellor talked about growth, but the OBR has revised down its growth estimate. The Chancellor also talked about cutting inflation, but again the OBR says it will remain higher for longer.
Growth is stalling because investment is falling. We need to generate an even more ambitious proposal for public investment. With departmental budgets losing value across the board thanks to inflation, our public services are being decimated. The OBR has identified this period as
“the largest reduction in real living standards since ONS records began”.
This autumn statement means that the people living through a cost of living crisis will continue to struggle and suffer: 14 million people living in poverty, including 4 million children, 10 million people going hungry and 6 million people living in fuel poverty. It is shameful that in the fifth-richest nation in the world there are so many millions of people suffering.
On welfare reform, I have, like others, been inundated with constituents who are struggling because of the inadequacies of the current social security system. One lady said that her family found the assessment and reassessment processes complicated, intrusive, degrading and unfair. The family are appealing a decision to refuse a renewal application, and the entire experience has caused extreme stress, anxiety and financial hardship. That is just one example of people failed by a process that is completely not fit for purpose, and the further conditions and sanctions announced will make it far worse. As someone who worked for many years in welfare benefits advice, I can assure hon. Members that nobody chooses not to work—and shame on those on the Government side who made comments to that effect. It is simply not the case.
On public services, as my old council leader, Andrew Morgan, said last week, local services in south Wales are “on their knees”, as they are elsewhere throughout the country. Local authorities are struggling with falling revenue and the inability to provide vital services, and we are seeing increasing community agitation against service cuts during the worst cost of living crisis in living memory. Those cuts are the responsibility solely of this Tory Government.
In my Cynon Valley constituency and the area served by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, there are protests against food price rises and council service closures and outsourcing. People are seeking alternative answers and models for increasingly difficult questions. People in our community, I am pleased to say, want to look at alternatives such as community wealth building, by which we would generate and retain wealth within our own community—it is called cymunedoli, or communitisation. I assure the House that I will continue to work alongside constituents to organise for the change that we need.
Wealth generated in Wales has been extracted from our country since the industrial revolution, so I will continue challenging the dogmatic neoliberal economic approach taken by this Tory Government. Sadly for Wales, the purse strings remain here in Westminster, and Wales is still being exploited. The UK has failed to fund making coal tips safe, has failed to fund our HS2 consequentials, and has failed in the levelling-up agenda. We need a proper, fair, needs-based settlement for Wales. Across the UK, we need public investment, decent public services and pay restoration for public servants, and we need to scrap sanctions on social security. We must stop investing in fossil fuels; otherwise, we will accelerate the climate catastrophe. We need to increase Treasury revenue to fund that change through progressive wealth taxes, including inheritance, land and property taxes.
In my home of Cynon valley and the south Wales valley, we have a strong history of being at the forefront of change and of working-class organisation and struggle. We are organising again, and we demand to be treated fairly and with respect. We can, and we will, deliver change for our communities. We deserve better, and our future generations deserve a future.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Errol Graham starved to death in his own home. When his body was found, he weighed just 4½ stone. Errol was a grandfather. He was disabled and suffered from severe mental ill-health. He lived alone in his flat, where, at the time of his death, he had no hot water, no heating and no income for food and utilities. A few months before he died, Errol’s out-of-work and housing benefits were stopped. Reviews into Errol’s death criticised the Department for Work and Pensions for its handling of his case and found that the authorities repeatedly missed opportunities to help him.
Errol’s death was utterly tragic, but it was not unavoidable or isolated. A BBC investigation found that since 2012, 82 people have died after alleged DWP activity such as the termination of social security support. The lives of disabled people across the country are made more difficult, more insecure and more beset by fear and anxiety because of the cruel and callous policies enacted by Conservative Governments. I highlight that because a central feature of this autumn statement is a renewed assault on the rights of sick and disabled people. That assault ranges from the threat of totally withdrawing disabled people’s out-of-work benefits if they cannot find work after 18 months to new sanctions that could see people losing access to free NHS prescriptions and legal aid. Rather than demonstrating that damning lessons of past DWP failures have been learned, those policies are recipes for more tragedies and more people dying alone in desperate need.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted earlier in the debate, that scapegoating comes on the back of the Government’s desperate attempts to demonise other marginalised groups—none more so than migrants and refugees. In both instances, the Government are playing divide and rule. They say that the problem with our public services is not school budgets being slashed, NHS funding cuts or privatisation; instead, they tell the British public that their problem is the migrant next door or the disabled person down the road. The intent is the same: to distract and divide, even if it means punishing the poor and vulnerable, and heaping misery upon misery.
It is little wonder that the Government are doing so now: as the Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear, Britain faces the biggest hit to living standards since records began. The outlook is set to get worse, with the OBR highlighting that this autumn statement bakes in a new round of austerity cuts. The real value of Government departmental spending is set to be slashed by nearly £20 billion by 2028.
Behind those cuts, and behind the demonisation of the poor and marginalised, is a myth that pervades our politics: the myth that there is not enough to go round. It is true that there is not enough to go round for ordinary people, as our constituents know too well. Millions of people are struggling to make ends meet. More than 14 million people are living below the poverty line, including more than 4 million children, and last year the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 3.8 million people experienced destitution. That is defined as severe poverty, where people cannot afford basic needs—that does not mean just struggling to pay the bills and keep food on the table, but choosing between heating and eating, a choice that becomes more and more painful as winter bites.
While the majority of people are struggling to make ends meet, it is simply a myth that there is not enough to go round, because last year, for example, the wealth of Britain’s billionaires grew by more than £30 billion, up to nearly £700 billion. I will break that down: that is seven followed by 11 zeroes. That obscene wealth is matched by the profits of some of the biggest companies in the country, from the four biggest banks—Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and NatWest, which saw pre-tax profits rocket by 79% this year—to the likes of Amazon, which saw global profits nearly triple this year to around £8 billion. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave workers at Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, who became the first in UK history to go on strike after they were offered a pay rise worth just 35p. I was proud to join them again on the picket line on Friday in that company’s biggest ever global strike.
What is true of Amazon is true of society as a whole: the problem is not that there is not enough wealth, but that the super-rich are hoarding all the wealth, and that can be tackled. An annual wealth tax of just 1.5% on assets over £10 million, for example, would raise £12 billion a year. Equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates would raise another £15 billion a year, and ending the non-dom tax break for the super-rich would raise a further £3 billion a year. That is money we could use to invest in our communities, to reverse 13 years of austerity, and to build a social security system that treats sick and disabled people with the dignity and respect they deserve. It could do everything from funding universal free school meals and ending the cruel two-child limit to properly funding our schools and hospitals, rebuilding collapsing infrastructure and giving hope to everyone in every corner of this country. This failed Tory Government will never do that, so it must be the mission of the next Labour Government.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
As the 562nd woman to be elected to this place, I welcome the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), who is the 563rd and also another Sarah.
This Conservative Government have left families to struggle, without access to vital health services and with food inflation at 10%, while trying to manage sky-high mortgage repayments. The Government’s response is to claim to cut taxes while taking £45 billion a year through frozen thresholds and stealth tax hikes, and punishing those who are too sick to work or are unable to afford vital medical treatment. My constituents across Somerton and Frome have told me that they want access to three things: dentists, GPs and pharmacies. This autumn statement will do nothing to resolve the national crises that those essential health services are facing. The Government seem unable to understand that a healthy economy needs a healthy population, and both those things require a healthy NHS.
I am unsure whether this Government are aware of just how bad things are in rural Somerset. Our dentist services are in decay: in 2022, only 38% of adults in Somerset were able to access a dentist in the previous two years. That statistic is no surprise, given that there is only one dentist delivering NHS services for every 1,773 people in the county. Many dentists in Somerton and Frome tell me they are closing their lists, and there are no NHS dentists currently taking on new adult patients. On the doorsteps, I meet more and more people who, shockingly, have turned to DIY dentistry out of desperation. The Government should have heeded Liberal Democrat calls to begin to address this crisis, because access to dentistry is an essential part of healthcare, not a cosmetic benefit.
According to the Resolution Foundation, going into the autumn statement the Chancellor had fiscal headroom for additional spending worth an extra £13 billion a year. The Liberal Democrats would have used that windfall to tackle the NHS crisis and end DIY dentistry and the dental deserts we now see across Somerset, giving people the quality care they deserve and allowing more people to return to work to grow our economy. Instead, the Government are slashing the NHS budget by £5 billion next year.
My constituents are also unable to access GP services. A constituent has recently informed me that they contacted their GP regarding severe inner ear pain, but they were unable to get an appointment with their local GP. This forced them to seek expensive private treatment for something that, if left untreated, would have had a detrimental impact on their quality of life. Another constituent struggled to get an appointment to look at a hernia, but after waiting in pain for weeks, they were forced to go private. They were then diagnosed with an incarcerated hernia—a condition that can be life-threatening if left untreated.
The number of GPs in Somerset has declined by 59 since December 2016, and a fully qualified GP in Somerset now has 2,157 patients. However, this is not isolated just to Somerset. People living in South Cambridgeshire, for example, are also feeling the acute effects of a lack of GP services. Here, there is one fully qualified GP for every 2,420 patients, which is 120 more patients per fully qualified GP than the England average. The Liberal Democrats would have used the extra £13 billion to deliver 8,000 more GPs and create 65 million more appointments every year.
Finally, pharmacies play a vital role in rural areas. Pharmacists are qualified clinical professionals who help remove some of the immense burden on hospitals and GPs, yet the Government continue to treat them as an afterthought. We are about to see a pharmacy in Wincanton close, which will only increase pressures and force residents to travel further to access a pharmacy. Community pharmacies are facing financial pressures and a recruitment crisis. We need to ensure their viability and sustainability nationwide. The Liberal Democrats would provide urgent emergency funding to keep pharmacies open and reverse closures, alongside providing pharmacies with greater prescribing rights to ease pressures on GPs.
Instead of investing in our NHS, growing the economy and helping people with the cost of living crisis, all the Conservatives have to offer is more chaos and mismanagement. The Liberal Democrats have a long-term plan for the NHS, but this Government either do not get it, or they simply do not care.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I want to start where a number of my hon. Friends have in this debate, which is talking about community facilities that are filling gaps where the Government are failing. A few weeks ago, I visited a fantastic community resource in Burnbank in Hamilton in my constituency, which is providing emergency food parcels, but also doing a lot to support people back into work through things such as improving IT skills so people can improve their CVs. Far from the image that the Government might like to give about people not in work, they are doing everything they can to find employment, and the least the Government could have done last week was to meet them halfway.
There are a number of things in the autumn statement that I do support. The increase in the minimum wage, however it has been rebranded, is welcome, although it has not kept pace with the real living wage, which means that the wages of many of the lowest earners are still not keeping up with their costs. I welcome the commitment to uprate benefits by the September rate of CPI, although since that is the convention anyway I am not sure the Chancellor deserves any applause for it.
The reality is that a year on from the ill-fated mini-Budget we have a Government engaged in smoke and mirrors, giving out with pre-election frenzy what they have taken away tenfold before. We have a Government who claim to improve living standards while the OBR finds the complete opposite: the largest reduction in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
Perhaps most damaging of all, the rates of poverty and destitution in the UK are forecast to go up, not down. That in itself is a damning indictment of any Government, and I confess that I struggle to comprehend it. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveals that a staggering 3.8 million people experienced destitution last year, more than double the figure in the last five years—and, most shamefully of all, that figure includes 1 million children. The social security system, our great collective invention to provide the cradle-to-grave support that people need when they need it most, is not touching the sides of this crisis. Some 72% of those destitute were in receipt of benefits.
One of the most affected groups is those with a disability and chronic health problem; some 63% of people experiencing destitution fit into that category. I will focus my remarks on that group, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the trustee of two charities working with people with disabilities.
Alongside the failure to provide the kind of boost to living standards that would have made a real difference, the Chancellor sought to use his autumn statement to demonise those with long-term conditions who rely on benefits. On work capability assessments, the removal of the mobility descriptor will mean those with severe mobility issues being placed in the limited capability for work group, meaning they will receive less support every month and be expected to prepare for work they might simply not be able to do.
Disabled people have enormous potential and, as many of my hon. Friends have said, I do not think anyone would suggest that those who are able to get into work should not be given the support to do so, but the key is to understand the support they need. The Multiple Sclerosis Society recently highlighted the issue of workplaces not providing the reasonable adjustments necessary to provide for flexible working. I recently spoke to a person in my constituency who has very severe epilepsy. Resistant to most epilepsy medication, if he has a seizure he requires emergency medication and for a number of days afterwards is completely exhausted. For people with such neurological conditions there is not a uniform pattern of health issues; they change from day to day and week to week. The holistic support provided to people to get into work must reflect that.
Much of what the Chancellor said seems to be predicated on the assumption that the world of work has changed since the pandemic and that everybody is somehow now able to work from home, but I would be curious to know what evidence he has to base that on. What proportion of current job vacancies are listed as home-based, and what proportion have flexible working arrangements? Disabled people predominantly occupy lower-paid jobs and, as a number of colleagues have said, most vacancies for homeworking tend to be in the higher pay band and higher-qualified sectors.
It is clear that the Chancellor’s lack of understanding of disabled people’s real lived experience means this patronising side note in the autumn statement will do real damage. Charities have lined up to criticise it as stigmatising, with the assumption yet again that disabled people do not want to work and are somehow a drain on our economy. A constituent with spina bifida who does fantastic work on integration with refugee communities in Glasgow has had cuts to her benefits and care package, meaning she might not be able to continue in work any longer. She put it very well, saying she
“feels like a cost, a negative on a balance sheet not a person with abilities and aims in life.”
We need to reframe this whole conversation.
When considering the autumn statement in the round, we must look at these specific measures that are not doing anywhere near enough to lift people out of poverty. For a particular group of people who are most likely to experience destitution, not only will the autumn statement not make their lives better, but it will actively make them more difficult. That should never be the aim of a Government, and I hope this will lead to a rethink on some of the specific measures outlined last week.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
The Chancellor’s autumn statement is yet another assault on the poor, long-term sick and disabled—one that is both deadly and economically illiterate. Thirteen years of Conservative policies have caused untold misery for the poor, and especially for disabled people, and have been linked to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. A University of Glasgow study last year found that more than 330,000 excess deaths were the result of austerity, and that austerity had not just halted the decades-long increase in UK life expectancy, but thrown it into complete reverse, especially among poor people. Rather than respond to the appalling effects of those policies by changing course, the Government are now intensifying their attack on the poor, sick and disabled, scapegoating and demonising them for the Government’s failure to grow the economy.
This country already has by far the worst out-of-work benefits of any comparable European nation and one of the harshest conditionality regimes, yet the Chancellor will now punish claimants for not engaging with state-sanctioned coercive therapy while the Government usurp the role of medical experts in deciding who is fit for work. Capitalism and oppression rely on the exploitation of human labour, and it seems that not even the exploitation of disabled people’s labour is off the table in the competitive drive to accumulate even more wealth for the rich. People’s wellbeing is a secondary concern for capitalism, and oppression through vicious sanction is the necessary corollary.
The escalation of the already punitive sanctions regime will see the working class, including the long-term sick, cut off even from support with healthcare. The awful consequences of those moves are not hard to predict, especially for those with long-term complex health conditions or disabilities, or those suffering poor mental health.
As long ago as 2014, NHS data showed that more than four in 10 people claiming out-of-work disability benefits—more than double the figure from the previous survey—had attempted suicide because of the punishing and attritional fit-for-work regime. Under successive Conservative Governments, the treatment of disabled people has been so horrific that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities condemned the UK for creating “a human catastrophe”. To the shame of this Government, the UK has 14 million people in poverty, well over 4 million of them children. Children from families with a disabled or long-term sick member are more than twice as likely to live in poverty. That figure was measured before the impact of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis.
The Government claim that the sanctions they intend to apply in cutting off universal credit to the poor will not be applied to those with children or to people with disabilities, but medical professionals and disability campaigners point out that, based on the Government’s track record, the new regime will clearly be used to legitimise discrimination against people with chronic illnesses or disabilities. That is unequivocally against the European convention on human rights, but also fundamentally counterproductive.
As economists have pointed out, it is overwhelmingly clear that if we want to grow the economy, we need to redistribute wealth, invest in communities and put more money into the pockets of the poor, the working classes and the worst-off, because they will spend it locally and increase economic activity. Instead, the Chancellor has announced tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations—money that will end up in offshore bank accounts, where it does nothing for our economy. This latest assault on the poor and disabled will do the opposite of what the Chancellor claims to be trying to achieve.
Our country desperately needs politicians who put physical, emotional and economic health above an ideological commitment to helping the rich and hitting the poor, the sick and the disabled. Tragically for the millions of struggling poor people in this country, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are again doing the opposite of what they need. The Government’s proposals are part of an ideological attack on the working class. The Chancellor’s statement betrays those who most need help. It is simply unfit for purpose.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The autumn statement may have been intended as something of a pre-election sweetener, but for most people in Wales it has a bitter taste. The intended big news was, of course, the tax cuts and, in Wales as elsewhere, a few small persuaders for some favoured Tory marginals—but not for others, as we will see at the next election. The reality is the biggest drop in living standards since records began and, as we have heard, the highest tax burden since the second world war. The Chancellor’s speech gave little relief and even less hope to Welsh households and leaves our public services in an even more desperate condition.
On Thursday, we will no doubt hear right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches making a great deal of the intended cut to national insurance. I look forward to hearing at least one of them also noting that tax thresholds have been frozen, pushing 4 million low-paid workers into income tax and 3 million people into a higher tax band, which strikes me as something of an own goal for the Conservative party at the next election. The wholly predictable regional truth is that the national insurance cut predominantly favours London and the south-east, where it offers an average gain of £316 annually, while those in Wales, for example, stand to gain £211. That amplifies rather than relieves Wales’s economic plight.
Our public services continue to wither without the investment needed. Buses, railways, healthcare, sustainable energy and other such initiatives in Wales are desperate for proper funding, yet the projections for departmental budgets show a £19 billion cut. We have been through many years of crisis, yet our economy is not prepared for the shocks of the future—an ageing population, higher Government debt, higher interest rates, energy insecurity and, of course, climate change—because we are seeing the consequences of failure to act over 13 long years.
A report published today by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit finds that, due to the combination of energy cost and climate change impacts across 2022 and 2023, household food bills have increased by an average of £605. Climate costs account for 60% of that—£361 per household.
Wales desperately needs to break from the economic doom loop caused by chronic short-termism. The autumn statement tightened the trap of short-term thinking. It is a cycle in which we are told that investment is not possible because we cannot afford it, but failure to invest weakens our economy even further.
Plaid Cymru has outlined fair and ambitious plans for Wales, which include replacing the Barnett formula with a funding system based on need. We would also devolve the Crown Estate to Wales, as has been done in Scotland, ensuring that the profits of our natural resources are invested back into our communities. But we also need practical help for the immediate cost of living pressures faced by ordinary people. For example, we ask for moderate measures to help with petrol and diesel costs. Major supermarket fuel retailers are enjoying record profit margins by overcharging at the pumps, despite reduced wholesale fuel prices.
We called on the Chancellor to pressure the large fuel retailers to reduce prices when wholesale costs fall. The rural fuel duty relief scheme currently gives 5p relief to rural areas in England and Scotland. Extending it to Wales would have helped people in rural areas who are sadly reliant on cars due to our terrible public transport system, but the Chancellor chose not to act.
We urged the Government to address the severe geographical disparity in energy bill standing charges. Residents in Wales pay £80 more than Londoners every year, though we produce much more electricity than London. The stark inequality requires urgent action by the Treasury and further underlines the need for a fairer energy pricing system, including the development of a social tariff but, again, the Chancellor chose not to act.
Wales deserves more than empty promises. We are asking for—indeed, we are demanding—fairness, investment and a genuine commitment to rid our communities of poverty and the lack of opportunity. The autumn statement delivered none of that. It is further proof to us that London-based economic policymaking will never work in the interests of Wales.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Last week, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out his autumn statement, there was much anticipation about what kind of rabbit would be pulled out of the hat. Despite the Chancellor’s upbeat delivery, the performance was less Harry Potter magic and more Paul Daniels-style trickery.
Almost all of the Government’s financial headroom—the amount they have left over after their commitments—was blown on a small tweak to national insurance contributions. The Chancellor lauded the changes, suggesting that they would save people hundreds of pounds every year, but he failed to mention that even with the changes, the average person will pay more in tax overall. I can see that the cost of covid must be paid for, but I object to the spinning of a larger tax burden as a smaller one. That is partly because the Chancellor continued a freeze on tax thresholds—the level at which our constituents start to pay tax. Higher inflation means that many more will be dragged into paying more tax, whether at the higher or the basic rate. That is giving with one hand while taking substantially more with the other. The Resolution Foundation has identified that under the plans, taxes will rise by the equivalent of £4,300 per household in the decade from 2019. Even by the end of this Parliament, it expects that households will be £1,900 worse off than at the beginning of it.
In Government, the Liberal Democrats delivered tax cuts for millions by doubling the amount someone could earn before they started paying tax. By contrast, this Conservative Government are one of the highest taxing Governments in history, allowing increasing numbers of low and middle-income earners to be dragged into paying ever increasing amounts of tax. It is simply not sustainable. We need more efficient spending of public money, with targeted investment, to ease the squeeze and save us money down the line. For example, of the £784 billion of taxpayer money that the UK Government spent last year, £39.3 billion was given to households as an energy subsidy. It would not have been necessary to give away so much of that taxpayer money had Lord Cameron, as Prime Minister, not cut the “green crap”.
There were a couple of welcome measures in the statement. I was pleased to see the extension of the business rate discount, including for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, of which we have many excellent ones in my part of east Devon. The decision to keep the triple lock on pensions was also welcome, and ensures that pensions rise to match earnings, giving pensioners peace of mind and financial security. I called for that in Treasury questions less than a fortnight ago, so it is pleasing to see it rise in line with earnings at 8.5%. But the rest of the autumn statement was notable for what the Chancellor did not say. There was no additional money for the NHS or social care, despite the fact that the winter cold is already starting to set in. I am genuinely puzzled by that. It is a disastrous oversight that risks inflicting real challenges on our dedicated health professionals and our communities in the year ahead.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is lucky: like me, he represents a constituency in Devon. That means he knows how much people in Devon value our community hospitals. In my own corner of Devon, Seaton Community Hospital is at risk of having a whole ward of the facility stripped away to be sold off or even demolished. That is due to the continued squeeze on local healthcare budgets, with Devon NHS alone facing an almost £40 million shortfall. The Chancellor’s statement did nothing to address that grim situation.
There was also a distinct lack of funding to help clean up our rivers and beaches. Because of the wayward activities of water companies and the fact that the Government have just left this issue to Ofwat, we are seeing huge levels of raw sewage put into our once pristine local rivers and beaches. That is harming biodiversity and putting the health of people and animals at risk. The scandal also pervades England’s chalk streams. For example, those that empty into the River Itchen near Winchester contain unique biodiversity and ecosystems. Our sites of special scientific interest also see sewage dumping and ecological vandalism.
How would I sum up the autumn statement? Overall, it sums up the current Conservative Government: out of touch. Floundering for a buoyancy vest, their party ship continues to list and sink. Our communities deserve better. Devon deserves better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close this debate, and the debate on the autumn statement as a whole, on behalf of the Opposition. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the new Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for her excellent maiden speech and welcome her to the House, and to the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), for her comprehensive and damning opening on the Government’s record.
I also pay a particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and express my condolences for the loss of his constituent. It is a tragedy that he did not see justice from the Post Office Horizon scandal before he died, but I know that he and his family will be proud of the work that my right hon. Friend has done over many, many years to bring justice to those who have been affected.
More broadly, we have heard a range of excellent speeches, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg), for West Ham (Ms Brown), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist), to name just a few who set out from their constituencies how, even though the Conservatives tell us things are doing alright, the lived reality for families across the country is anything but. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) about the amount of money the Government have wasted over many, many years, and what that could do to support people in constituencies across the country, including Blaydon, Lewisham East, Newport West, Liverpool, West Derby, Cynon Valley, Coventry South, and Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Lastly, we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) about 13 years of Conservative failure on the economy and the consequences for their constituents.
Over the course of the past few days of the debate—and noting, if I may say so, how few Conservative Members contributed to the debate today to defend the Government’s record—it has been clear that we on the Labour Benches have the ideas and the energy to turn the economy around, while on the Conservative Benches, after 13 years of Conservative failure on the economy, it seems the Tory bandwagon has run out of fuel, leaving its Back Benchers arguing on the side of the road about who should be given the keys next while the real world moves on, leaving our country and the British people behind.
Let me now turn to the autumn statement itself. Well, what can I say, Madam Deputy Speaker? A fiction, a fantasy, a fallacy, an all-round F grade for an autumn statement that failed to deliver the change that our country needs. Even the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, with some surprise, that
“a lot of these numbers… are sort of made up.”
But it is worse than that, because the Conservatives want the public to believe in their financial folklore. When he announced his autumn statement last week, the Chancellor said:
“we are sticking to a plan that is working.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 337.]
The plan is working? Really? We all know that, irrespective of which side of the House we sit on, if we asked our constituents, “What in this country is working right now?”, they would say “Absolutely nothing at all.” How strange, therefore, that this Conservative Government, who appear to be so lacking in vision for our country, can be so good at playing make-believe.
The Conservatives keep telling us that we have never had it so good—that everything is fine—but here in the real world, people have real problems: unaffordable food bills, unaffordable mortgage bills, unaffordable energy bills. Many Conservative Members seem to think those are not problems for working people across the country, but, remarkably, this is the first Parliament on record—the first Conservative Parliament—in which, by the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, people and their living standards will have fallen, not improved. Those are the hard realities that people are facing.
We know why people are facing these financial pressures, and why living standards in the UK are falling. Irrespective of what we are told by Conservative Ministers, economic growth has been downgraded, not upgraded. The tax burden weighs heavier than ever, not lighter, and high inflation is lingering, not fleeting. On every measure on the dashboard of the UK economy, the red lights are flashing. The Conservatives would have us believe that tax is down when it is up, that the cost of living crisis has ended when energy bills are going up once again, and that this autumn statement will somehow stimulate economic growth when even the Governor of the Bank of England has said of growth that
“there’s no doubt it’s lower than it has been in much of my working life.”
The Tories want to spin a tale that the latest Conservative Prime Minister is the hero of the story, a real-life Robin Hood bringing tax cuts to help working people, but there are a few serious holes in that story. First, the Prime Minister is not new to the scene, but has played a prominent role in this Conservative Government for many years—a Conservative Government who have introduced 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone, and a further 12 Tory stealth taxes just in the autumn statement. Secondly, it is this Conservative Government who decided to put income tax and national insurance thresholds on ice, which means that millions of people are being dragged into paying more tax. Thirdly, as a consequence, the tax cuts are not cuts in real terms at all. The Conservatives’ 25 tax rises have seen working people hand over an extra 10p in every pound they earn. So while I welcome the last week’s announcement of a 2p cut in national insurance, I do so with a very slow clap.
Everyone at home knows that the Conservatives may be giving out a few hundred quid in the autumn statement with one hand, but they have already taken thousands of pounds more from us, each and every year, with the other. In real terms, low and middle-income earners will still be worse off than they were before the Conservatives came to power, and that is a shameful record of failure. The Prime Minister is not Robin Hood; rather he is the Sheriff of Nottingham, because never have we paid so much in taxes and had so little in return. People at home will rightly be asking, “What on earth am I paying for? I cannot get an appointment with the GP, and I cannot find a dentist. Why is my pay not keeping up with the cost of living? Why is my rent”—or mortgage—“so much more expensive than it was before the Conservatives crashed the economy, and why will my energy bills, I am told, start to go up again?”
The Chancellor may have announced 101 policies for growth, but after 13 years of Conservative failure it is just too little, too late. That is why we in the Labour Party are focused on economic growth. Only by getting the economy back on track will we make the British people better off again. While it is obvious that Labour is the party of good work for working people, we are now the party of business too—working in partnership to deliver the investment that the country needs, co-investing alongside business to deliver a more secure, cheaper energy system, and unblocking the bottlenecks that prevent businesses from creating the good jobs that people want in the industries of the future.
The Prime Minister is hosting his global investment summit today, but we hear from investors and businesses week in, week out that it is all too late. Even IFM Investors, the Australian infrastructure investor which has pledged investment today, has said that
“government dysfunction and inefficient planning processes”
have meant that there are not many “attractive opportunities” left in the UK. The message could not be clearer.
The UK is at risk of relegation, and change is required. That is why my Friend the shadow Chancellor and I launched the British Infrastructure Council last week, and it is why my review on how we deliver major projects and infrastructure better in this country will set out how a Labour Government will get Britain building again. Alongside that laser focus on economic growth, built on the Labour party’s bedrock of fiscal responsibility —[Interruption.] There is chuntering from the Conservative Benches, but people at home will remember one year ago when the Government crashed the economy and interest rates and mortgage rates went through the roof, and those people are still suffering with the cost of living crisis today. Let people at home look at Ministers on the Government Benches laughing when those people cannot afford to pay their bills. Let them look at Conservative Members and decide whether they want even more after 13 years of Conservative failure or whether, quite frankly, it is time for change.
Public services are one of those things that need to change. My work in what I hope will be a future Labour Government will also be focused on reforming our public services, which have been left on their knees after 13 years of the Conservatives. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor has shown that he would rather just throw what money he has left at a problem than roll up his sleeves. With the interest on our national debt costing the British public more than £112 billion this year alone, he clearly has a different idea to me of what it means to be fiscally responsible with our money. Last week, the Chancellor demanded that public services should be 0.5 % more productive each year for the next 10 years, but he did not say how.
Instead, I stand here with my colleagues in the Labour party ready to modernise our public services. If we win the next election, we will improve outcomes for people who rely on those public services, we will improve the quality of work for our public servants and we will get the public sector budget back under control, because the British people deserve better. In contrast, the Conservatives seem happy to ignore the waste and inefficiencies of their spending over these past 13 years. Why? Because the hard work of reforming our public services and our economy requires strong and accountable leadership, not fleeting changes between 13 Ministers in one Department, five Prime Ministers and so many more. This Conservative Government are not strong and accountable for delivering our public services. They are weak, weak, weak. The only answer to fixing the last 13 years of this Conservative Government is to close the book on their failure, to say goodbye to those last 13 years and to have a Labour Government who will unleash a decade of national renewal, so I ask the latest Conservative Prime Minister to do this country a favour and call an election.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Well, we have seen it, haven’t we—the same old Labour, never knowingly missing an opportunity to talk the country down yet again. I will return to that theme in a moment because it is very serious. I am delighted, in my first debate in this House as Financial Secretary, that I get to offer the closing words in our debate on the autumn statement. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for opening today’s debate. His speech was a compelling argument for the value of work. This is an autumn statement that is good for the businesses of this country and good for the people of this country. We know that the two things go hand in hand.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister referred to his colleague in the DWP. Earlier today, we heard one of his colleagues in the Home Office confirm that the Government had no intention of allowing asylum seekers to work to help pay the cost of their accommodation. How does it make sense to say that the way to stop a disabled person being a burden on the taxpayer is to force them to work when they are not fit to, but that the way to stop an asylum seeker being a burden on the taxpayer is to ban them from working even if there is a job they want to do?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman is missing the purpose of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions clearly outlined earlier today. Perhaps if he had been in the Chamber, he could have listened to it directly.
When this Government came to power, we inherited not only higher unemployment from Labour, as always, but a lopsided welfare system that discouraged people from even seeking work. In the last 13 years, by reducing workless households, tackling low pay and reforming the welfare system, we have helped hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty. In the wake of covid-19, we have nearly 1 million vacancies in the economy, yet more than 7 million adults of working age, not including students, are still not working. Even Opposition Members seem to recognise that many of them want to work, and therefore we will be spending £1.3 billion over the next five years to help nearly 700,000 people with physical and mental health conditions to find jobs. And we will provide a further £1.3 billion of funding to offer extra help for the 300,000 people who have been unemployed for over a year, to help them find work.
The Government also recognise that, to get more people working, we must back business, as it is business that creates the jobs and pays the wages that lift up our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) articulated. We will help the households of this country by boosting business through a variety of measures outlined in the autumn statement. Of course, the much-asked-for full expensing will be pivotal. We are also providing £4.5 billion over five years to support strategic manufacturing sectors that already have, or can gain, a competitive edge, namely in aerospace, automotive, clean energy and life sciences, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and others.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned, we are also supporting small businesses in this autumn statement. For those smaller businesses that are so integral to their communities, we are freezing the small business multiplier and extending the 75% business rate support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses for another year. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and others, for highlighting the importance of the tourism sector, which they know I care passionately about.
We are also establishing new investment zones throughout the country that will generate billions of pounds of investment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) highlighted.
There are other things we can do to ensure that work rewards workers, such as increasing their rate of pay and making sure they keep more of their earnings, which is exactly what we have done. We are abolishing class 2 national insurance contributions and cutting class 4 contributions. Alongside these cuts, we are raising the national living wage by 9.8% to £11.44 an hour and, of course, we are cutting the main rate of employee national insurance by two percentage points, giving a tax cut to 27 million workers. The Opposition may not appreciate that, but I assure them that their constituents do.
These measures will create work, get people into work and make sure that work is rewarding, as Conservative Members have recognised, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton).
Before briefly addressing some of the other points that have been raised, I take this opportunity to congratulate the new hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on her maiden speech. She started well by praising her constituents, which is always a good move, and I wish her well in this House.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) mentioned R&D, and the Government will merge the existing R&D expenditure credit scheme and small and medium-sized enterprise scheme from April 2024. This will simplify and improve the system, helping to drive innovation in the UK economy. That message of simplification was also pushed by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). These reforms represent an overall increase in support to R&D companies of around £200 million a year by 2028-29.
The hon. Member for Gordon also mentioned the Scotch whisky industry. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that his party’s Members have singularly failed to support any one of the new trade deals that we have signed and are signing, despite the fact that they support every single nation and region of the United Kingdom and are transparently in the interests of their constituents.
Nigel Huddleston
No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time. I hope he will support the CPTPP deal when it comes before the House. Cigarettes An amount equal to the higher of — (a) 16.5% of the retail price plus £316.70 per thousand cigarettes, or (b) £422.80 per thousand cigarettes. Cigars £395.03 per kilogram Hand-rolling tobacco £412.32 per kilogram Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £173.68 per kilogram Tobacco for heating £325.53 per kilogram”.
I always support Scotch whisky, which is a success story that we should all champion. It is a £6 billion export industry, and we can all be proud that 51 bottles of Scotch whisky are exported every second. Let us create more opportunities by supporting these trade deals.
The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) mentioned the UK tax gap, and she is absolutely right to highlight that important matter but, of course, she is well aware that the tax gap is on a long-term downward trend. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. The tax gap was 7.5% under Labour, and it is now at a record low of 4.8%, which is something she forgot to mention.
Perhaps most importantly, there is the context in which we have made this autumn statement, as was mentioned by many hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I refer to the fact that we have faced difficult times, with not just one but two global shocks that have had an impact on, and reverberated around, the world. That meant that we were required, expected and proud to intervene in a way that we have not had to do since the second world war. The figures are astounding: more than £350 billion provided during the pandemic to make sure that we supported lives and livelihoods; and, in the light of the invasion of Ukraine, a further £100 billion of support to help those facing cost of living challenges, including our paying nearly half of people’s energy bills last winter.
The Opposition seem to have a collective sense of amnesia about that; it is astounding that they do not understand that all of this money needs to be paid back. Their constituents, who are managing their finances every day, completely understand that you cannot spend money you do not have and if you get into debt, it needs to be paid off. Today, not only are the Opposition criticising us for high taxes, but their solution then seems to be spending even more. That is absolute economic incompetence and shows that they are completely unfit for office. The reality is that Conservatives increase taxes out of necessity and then reduce them out of choice, whereas the Labour party increases taxes out of necessity and out of choice. That is a fundamental difference between our parties, and therefore at the first opportunity we have had to reduce taxes, because the economic circumstances are better—how disappointing is good economic news for those on the Opposition Benches—and we are now in a better economic position, we are now reducing taxes.
Another important theme we have seen from those on the Opposition Benches is this utter pessimism and lack of confidence and faith in the UK economy. We are not pretending, for one minute, that everything is perfect; we know, as constituency MPs, that many people in our constituencies, right across the country, are suffering—we are all aware of that. However, constantly talking the UK down is not only incorrect, but bad for business and for the UK economy. I hope that the Opposition Members understand that when they are talking Britain down, they are talking workers, businesses and their constituencies down. Expectations and confidence matter, as they are what lead to investment in the UK. Because of the confidence in the UK economy, we saw investment announced last week by Nissan, this very day we have the global investment summit taking place and we are seeing billions of pounds more of incremental investment coming into the UK. That is because other countries have confidence in the UK economy, as do Conservative Members. The Opposition are signalling that they do not, and that is a terrible signal to send to the world. Again, if you do not have confidence in the UK economy, you are not fit for office.
The Opposition are talking Britain down. We have seen a huge amount of incremental investment. The Opposition do not like to understand that, for example, we have the second highest level of foreign direct investment in the world, after only the US. Just recently, we have overtaken France and moved from being the ninth largest to the eighth largest manufacturing country in the world. Because of our exporting success, we have gone from being the sixth biggest to the fifth biggest exporter in the world, and we have the second largest export of services of any country in the world. The Opposition may not like those facts, but they are true and provide every reason why we are keen to talk Britain up.
Today, we have seen a positive debate and measures in the autumn statement that back both business and our citizens. From a platform of progress, this is an autumn statement for growth, which will bring jobs, opportunities and prosperity to every corner of the country. I commend the autumn statement to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (table of rates of tobacco products duty), for the Table substitute—
“TABLE
(2) In consequence of the provision made by paragraph (1), in Schedule 2 to the Travellers' Allowances Order 1994 (which provides in certain circumstances for a simplified calculation of excise duty on goods brought into Great Britain) —
(a) in the entry relating to cigarettes, for “£393.45” substitute “£422.80”,
(b) in the entry relating to hand rolling tobacco, for “£351.03” substitute “£412.32”,
(c) in the entry relating to other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco, for “£161.62” substitute “£173.68”,
(d) in the entry relating to cigars, for “£367.61” substitute “£395.03”,
(e) in the entry relating to cigarillos, for “£367.61” substitute “£395.03”, and
(f) in the entry relating to tobacco for heating, for “£90.88” substitute “£97.66”.
(3) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force at 6pm on 22 November 2023.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Capital allowances (permanent full expensing etc)
3. Corporation tax (relief for research and development)
4. Corporation tax (films, television programmes and video games)
5. Corporation tax (relief for theatrical productions)
6. Corporation tax (relief for orchestral concerts)
7. Corporation tax (relief for museum and gallery exhibitions)
8. Administrative provisions relating to creative reliefs
9. Real estate investment trusts
10. Tonnage tax
11. Extension of EIS relief and VCT relief
12. Relief for payments of compensation to companies (Horizon etc)
13. Enterprise management incentives (time limits)
14. Pensions (provision connected with abolition of lifetime allowance charge)
15. Pensions (Members of Parliament etc)
16. Income tax (calculation of profits on cash basis)
17. PAYE regulations (special types of payer or payee)
18. Carer’s allowance supplement (correction of reference)
19. Stamp duty reserve tax (growth market exemption)
20. Stamp duty (capital-raising arrangements etc)
21. Stamp duty reserve tax (capital-raising arrangements etc)
22. Pillar Two
23. Rates of vehicle excise duty (passenger or light goods vehicles, motorcycles etc)
24. Rates of air passenger duty
25. Hydrocarbon oil duties (rebate on oils used for heating premises)
26. Vehicle excise duty (exemption for foreign vehicles)
27. Interpreting VAT and excise law
28. Rates of landfill tax
29. Rate of aggregates levy
30. Rate of plastic packaging tax
31. Increasing maximum term of imprisonment for tax offences
32. Promoters of tax avoidance (orders disqualifying company directors etc)
33. Promoters of tax avoidance (stop notices)
34. Construction industry scheme
35. Tax returns (information)
36. Commencement of provisions relating to penalties
37. Incidental or consequential provision
Finance Bill (Money)
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 4 together.
Retained EU Law Reform
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Design Right, Artist’s Resale Right and Copyright (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 October, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 October, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 October, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.—(Aaron Bell.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Energy
That the draft Green Gas Support Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 October, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.—(Aaron Bell.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the draft Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 October, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.—(Aaron Bell.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Aaron Bell.)
Backbench Business
Ordered,
That Bob Blackman, Kevin Foster, Patricia Gibson, Chris Green, Nigel Mills, Wendy Morton and Kate Osborne be added to the Backbench Business Committee.—(Rebecca Harris, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Home Affairs
Ordered,
That Paula Barker be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Kim Johnson be added.—(Rebecca Harris, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Women and Equalities
Ordered,
That Mark Jenkinson be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Dr Lisa Cameron be added.—(Rebecca Harris, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Post Office Services: Edinburgh West
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The subject of the debate is post office services in Edinburgh West. Although it is about my constituency, the problem could just as easily apply to many constituencies throughout the country. Indeed, I have not spoken to a single Member who has not said that their constituency faces the same problem with post office closures as we face in Edinburgh West.
When I was thinking about the debate, I wondered what the answer might be if I asked any of the children in my constituency what a post office was and what they used it for. I also thought they might look at me with astonishment if I told them that what they now regard as part of the local shop was once the organisation that provided everything from our telephone services at home, our mail and all sorts of Government forms, to pensions and stamps.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. Last week, the parliamentary group of the Democratic Unionist party met the Northern Ireland sub-postmasters association. Every one of those issues that she mentions were discussed with us. We were told that those opportunities were no longer available in the post office, by which I mean MOTs, car tax renewals, and passport renewals. The post office was also used as a community hub. All of those things highlight how important post offices were. I know that the hon. Lady has said all of that, so I hope that, in his response, the Minister can give us some succour and respite in relation to what the post offices can and should do.
Christine Jardine
The hon. Member makes a very good point. These were all vital services. Not so very long ago, post offices were central to communities up and down the country. They also provided some of the most spectacular examples of architecture, and they dominated our town centres. The local post office was where I applied for my first driving licence. I opened my first savings account there and queued for what seemed like hours every Christmas to make sure that the family’s cards and presents went off safely to various parts of Australia and Canada—but not any more. The Post Office I grew up with in the 1960s had 25,000 branches. In 2021, that figure had more than halved to 11,415, with more than half of those listed as vulnerable. The organisation itself lost £597 million in the same year.
In Scotland we have the biggest problem in the UK, having lost more than 6% of our post offices in the past two years alone. In Edinburgh West, two have closed and one has been relocated to a different area in the past year. As I said earlier, this problem is not isolated to Scotland or to Edinburgh West. One third of rural post offices are now offered as part-time outreach services.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. This is a truly national problem, which unfortunately affects the whole of the UK. Indeed, there is also a related problem of postal deliveries not appearing on time, which is having a huge effect on many residents. I have had closures of post offices in my constituency in Reading and Woodley, and also severe problems with residents not getting post on time, leading to people missing out on paying their bills and many other things.
Christine Jardine
That is a good point. The national service is being undermined. As the hon. Member mentioned, deliveries are not being made. Moreover, one third of rural post offices are now only part-time outreach services, open for an average of five and a half hours. It is not the service that we knew for many years and that communities are entitled to expect.
The irony of all this is that the Post Office still generates around £5 billion for the economy every year. In constituencies such as mine, which has lost 70% of its bank branches since 2015, we increasingly rely on the post office for banking services and so much more.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I would like to share with my hon. Friend a short quote from a letter that a constituent of mine wrote to me about the reduction of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and other Government services at post office branches. He said:
“Having worked for the Insolvency Service, I am aware that there are many people who do not have bank accounts, are better able to manage their affairs using cash, or need the reassurance of a face-to-face transaction to avoid getting into difficulties.”
Does she agree with my constituent?
Christine Jardine
I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent. Citizens Advice tells us that almost 20% of people still visit their post office weekly for one of the services that he mentioned. That increases to 23% of those in rural areas, 27% of carers, 22% of over-65s and 21% of disabled people, so there is a need in our communities. On the DVLA services that my hon. Friend mentioned, the contract with the Post Office ends in March next year. Currently, the Post Office handles more than 6 million DVLA transactions annually, which contributes £3.2 million per year to postmaster remuneration.
People rely on their post offices for all these services, yet we are seeing them fail because they do not have the support that they need from the Government. It is not worth their while; the postmasters who are closing in my constituency tell me that they do not have the support that they need. If we are to save what was once rightly claimed to be the front desk of Government in our communities from becoming an adjunct slotted into shops that are willing to put up with it, we need something to be done quickly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
We have all heard the point about post offices being the front desk of Government, but at the same time we are told that Government services will be digital by default. Is not the root cause of the problem the lack of strategy that would stem from a coherent Government position?
Christine Jardine
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no coherence to the Government’s position. Digital services do not work for everybody. Not everybody wants them. As with so many of our public services—buses, trains, the NHS and water—we need a recognition that this issue needs action now. It needs investment, and better support for those who supply the services. The reality is that some people will not be able to lead their lives as they would wish without the services that our post offices have traditionally offered, which are being undermined. Most do not want to; they enjoy the comfort of having a post office. They enjoy being able to pop in, particularly in rural communities, and buy their stamps, or collect their pensions.
This week, I was at my office in Edinburgh West. A gentleman stopped me in the street and asked me, ironically, whether I knew where the nearest post office was. Fortunately, I did. He had an A4 envelope in his hand. He said, “I need to get a stamp and post this, and I can’t find one,” so I directed him along the road. A post office is a simple thing, but they are vital to communities up and down the country. If the Minister, or the Prime Minister, has any doubts I would be more than happy to take them to a post office in Edinburgh West and introduce them to the many people who use the services that are still available—but I would quite like to do it while I still can, and while they are still there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate. She is right to say how highly valued post offices are to our communities, and to speak up for them in this debate. I promise her that I fully support her perspective, representing a rural constituency myself.
The network of roughly 11,500 branches around the UK that the hon. Member refers to is the largest retail network in the country. As she points out, a recent London Economics report pointed out how post offices not only have economic value in terms of the use of the post office itself—she referred to a gentleman with an envelope looking for a post office for a stamp—but benefit other local shops, cafés and other businesses on our high streets. The knock-on effect adds up to around £3.1 billion a year, according to that report, so we are fully aware of the importance of post offices to communities and to the economy.
I am very keen, and I have been since I took over as Minister for postal affairs about a year ago, among other duties relating to my brief, to challenge the Post Office to make sure that it is doing the right thing by postmasters. The hon. Lady quite rightly points to the level of remuneration that postmasters get. We have to get that right to make the whole network sustainable. I gently point out to her that the Post Office is a commercial business, so it is not something that I direct on a day-to-day basis, but I am keen to take forward challenges on behalf of Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Lady is aware of the network criteria that 99% of the population must live within three miles of their nearest branch and that—this is relevant to her constituency—95% of the total urban population must live within one mile of their nearest outlet. The network actually is not in decline—more post offices opened than closed over the course of the past year—but we see fluctuations, and it is regrettable that Edinburgh West has seen closures in recent months. I know that is very disappointing for her and her constituents; we know how important the post office is for those communities.
Of course many postmasters are running franchise businesses in their own right, and many of the challenges that postmasters face are faced by many high street businesses. Consumer habits are changing the dynamic and the viability of some postmasters’ businesses, and we need to find ways to make sure that they can run viable businesses that pay them fair remuneration for their work.
The hon. Lady and other hon. Members mentioned relationships such as that with the DVLA. That has been extended until the end of March next year. We want to see a longer-term deal than that, but that is a negotiation between relevant Government agencies and Post Office Ltd.
It is the case that consumer habits are driving down remuneration, and I do not think it is for us to dictate to our citizens how they should access services. Increasingly—I am sure the hon. Lady and other Members have done this—we access services such as passport or driving licence renewal online. That is much more convenient for many people, and it is driving down remuneration significantly. Only a few years ago, some of those Government services were contributing about £500 million annually to the post office network. That is down to a few tens of millions of pounds now, again because of consumer habits, but we are keen to try to make sure that there are other opportunities for postmasters.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) referred to elderly people and those who are isolated in the community and do not have access to online services. Those are the people who tell me they need their post office. There are many of them. I think the Minister would probably agree that there is a duty on the Government to try to encourage the renewal of those contracts come next March, and to ensure that the people we represent are looked after.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I say that both as a Member of Parliament serving a rural area and as postal affairs Minister. We want to make sure that every citizen of this entire nation is served properly. Post offices do an important job in that. We need to make sure that post offices are there, not just due to Government support, but because people use them. There are some things that we are working hard on to try to make sure that the level of remuneration, which lies at the heart of this debate, is improved.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is aware, Duart Crescent and Blackhall post offices have both unfortunately closed in recent months, due to their respective postmasters choosing to resign; they were not closed by the Post Office. The Post Office is advertising those opportunities to local retailers to try to reinstate services.
Christine Jardine
On the Minister’s point about Duart Crescent, yes, the postmaster resigned, but it is proving impossible to get a replacement there and in Blackhall, because the remuneration does not encourage them. Perhaps he will bear in mind another important point: we are all buying things online, and consumers are driving that change, but Royal Mail delivers a lot of them and we often go to the post office to return or collect them.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I will come to those comments shortly. Remuneration has to be part of the solution.
Barnton post office and Davidson’s Mains post office are both under a mile away respectively from the previous outlets at Duart Crescent and Blackhall, so there are post office services, and I understand that there are public transport routes to those services, although I have not been myself. The Government understand the disruption that the two recent closures will no doubt have caused. In October, Broomhall Drive post office opened, following a local consultation exercise in line with Post Office’s principles of community engagement, after the temporary closure of the St John’s Road post office.
Let me turn to future opportunities. Post office banking services are really important—again, they are important to remuneration—and there have been some issues with deposit limits. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I have applied a certain amount of pressure to banks and UK Finance to ensure that that situation is resolved, and it has improved to an extent, which is good news. We have also legislated, through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, for access to cash, which is really important. The Financial Conduct Authority is required to ensure that people have access to cash.
Christine Jardine
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that, when the contract is up shortly, a longer contract, to ensure stability for post offices with the banks, and the creation of more hubs that involve post offices, will be essential?
Kevin Hollinrake
Absolutely. This is a real opportunity for the network, and not just for a longer-term contract for more stability. It has the banking framework, which forms its relationship with the banks. The banks have made around £2.5 billion of cost savings through the closure of branches. We think that a greater share of those savings should be provided to the post office network to improve remuneration and invest in productivity tools for postmasters, such as cash-counting machines, so that the job of running a post office is more lucrative. We see that as a big opportunity.
In the banking framework, we have been clear with UK Finance and Post Office that they should be ambitious in negotiations and secure extra remuneration for the network. There were some improvements to remuneration in April, but I am aware, as I speak to postmasters all the time, that those improvements have not gone far enough in their view. I work closely with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, and we hear these views all the time, so we are very alive to the difficulties.
The other big opportunity that the hon. Lady implied is in the increasing number of parcels couriered around our country. There has been an exciting development in the parcels market for the Post Office, which has just launched something called Parcels Online. For the first time, Post Office will offer a multi-carrier in-branch proposition: because the exclusive agreement with Royal Mail has ended, a customer can go into a post office and use the services of DPD, Evri and others, which are being sold by postmasters. That is a great opportunity for postmasters and may well lift their revenue. That is the kind of future we see for post offices: providing access to cash and banking services—and getting paid better and more lucratively to do so—and offering parcel hub opportunities. Those are both really important services.
The hon. Lady mentioned banking hubs. That is a slight bone of contention, in my view. At the moment, they have not really been co-located with post offices, and I would like to explore with UK Finance more opportunities for co-location where space allows. It makes little sense to have two different units on the high street when we could have one really sustainable unit. That is something we are looking at too.
On what the Government can do through direct support, we have provided more than £2.5 billion over the past 10 years and will provide £335 million between 2022 and 2025. We have also provided around £50 million through the annual network subsidy for rural post offices, as well as other measures we provide to the general business community, such as rates support worth £13.6 billion. Another £4.3 billion was announced in the autumn statement.
Matt Rodda
Would the Minister reassure me on the interoperability of post office systems with those belonging to building societies? We have talked about that before, given some of the difficulties with accessing cash in my constituency. Will he also pass on my concerns and those of colleagues to Royal Mail about the lack of cover for postal staff when they are off sick? That appears to be driving some of the problems with delivery.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight those issues. Through the work that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I have done with UK Finance, more clarity has been given to postmasters about the limits for certain banks that have particular problems. The feedback I have got from postmasters is that the situation has improved, but I am very happy to hear feedback from Members of the House, including the hon. Gentleman, if that is not the case.
Of course, Royal Mail and the Post Office are two different things. Royal Mail has recently been fined for its underperformance. It has been affected by many different issues, including, of course, industrial action; it has had its share of issues this year. Hopefully it is putting those issues behind it, but we certainly expect to see a much better performance from Royal Mail going forward.
Like all retailers, post offices are facing very significant challenges at the moment. We have been clear about their value, both socially and economically—for our communities and for our economy. We will continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that both the organisation itself and the network are sustainable and fit for the future. We very much appreciate the work that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West does in this area; she quite rightly challenges me all the time on this. We are very much on the same page when it comes to making sure we have a viable network around the country, not least in our rural areas.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)
(5 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see such a well-attended Delegated Legislation Committee.
The Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the UK, and it is rightly protected by law. We understand that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. However, strike action across our public services over the past year has highlighted the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public.
Taking that into account, earlier this year Parliament passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which seeks to balance the ability of workers to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public to go about their daily lives, including getting to work and accessing key services.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister makes the point that he understands that people have the right to strike, but he says that strikes should not disrupt others. How does he reconcile that view with the fact that under Boris Johnson’s Government, scores of Ministers resigned at once and the Government almost ground to a halt? How does he reconcile that with what he proposes to this Committee?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do apologise, but I did not quite get the hon. Member’s point. Will he repeat it so that I can understand it?
David Linden
Does the Minister not understand that in the dying days of Boris Johnson’s Government, scores of Ministers withdrew their labour from the Government? Why is it one rule for the Tories and one rule for the workers?
Kevin Hollinrake
I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues, but I kept doing my daily job, as I am sure the hon. Member did.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have not finished responding to the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow East. I kept on doing my daily duty, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. I will make a little progress, if I can.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to enable regulations to be made specifying minimum service levels and the services to which they apply. Where minimum service levels regulations are in force, if a trade union gives an employer a notice of strike action under section 234A of the 1992 Act, the employer may issue the trade union with a work notice that identifies persons who are required to work and the work that they are required to carry out during the strike to secure minimum levels of service.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentions employers. For reasons that are unclear to me and perhaps beyond my understanding, we are discussing only one piece of delegated legislation today. Where is the code of practice for employers, and when is it likely to come before a Delegated Legislation Committee?
Kevin Hollinrake
We did not think it necessary to develop a statutory code of practice for employers, but we are producing guidance for employers on how they can comply with their regulations and engage with their workforce in such situations.
To comply with section 234E of the 1992 Act, which was inserted by the 2023 Act, trade unions should take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are identified in a work notice comply with that notice and do not take strike action during the periods in which the work notice requires them to work.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
How will the employer be compliant with GDPR requirements in a multi-union environment where lists will be going to different unions and where the employer itself will not know which unions individuals belong to? How will the Minister ensure that the names of employees will not go to unions that do not organise those particular workers?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady may be confusing two things. The employer and the unions both have a legitimate interest in the individual they are speaking to. The employer must speak to their workforce, and I am sure the unions will speak to their members. But this is all set out in both the statutory code of practice and guidance for employers. She will see more when she sees the guidance for employers.
Rachael Maskell
I am specifically talking about a multi-union environment. Where a number of trade unions are involved, how will the Minister ensure that GDPR requirements are met?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is not my responsibility to make sure that GDPR requirements are met.
Kevin Hollinrake
Will the hon. Lady listen to my answer? The employer has a relationship with the employee —without doubt, that is a legitimate interest—and the union has a relationship with its members. I am sure we can give the hon. Lady more detail if she would like me to write to her on the point, but I do not think that there is a complicated situation here. I think she will find that it works perfectly well in practice.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Maybe the Opposition can enlighten the Minister about workplaces in which there are multiple unions within the same work unit, representing different members. How can he assure us that the proposals set out in the code will not put employers in jeopardy of breaking the GDPR by sharing information about employees with the “wrong” union?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I say, I do not think that it is a complicated situation. As I set out to the hon. Member for York Central, the employer has a responsibility to contact their employees and union members, but I am happy to give more detail on that if the hon. Member for Luton South wants further clarification.
David Linden
Can I ask the Minister for clarification? As I understand it, the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West that there will not be a need for the Government to introduce a code of practice or guidance for employers. But in response to the hon. Member for York Central, the Minister has just said that it will be provided. Which of the two is right?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I said that there was no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but there will be guidance. We are debating the statutory code of practice for this legislation.
During the final stages of the parliamentary passage of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government committed to introduce a statutory code of practice to provide more detail on the reasonable steps that a trade union should take. In accordance with section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS and, on 25 August, published a draft code of practice, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views.
Following careful consideration of those views, a number of changes were made to the draft code, and the updated draft code of practice was laid before Parliament on 13 November. It sets out four reasonable steps that a trade union should take to meet the legal requirements under section 234E of the 1992 Act. Although the code does not impose legal obligations, it is admissible in evidence and is taken into account where a court or tribunal considers it relevant.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
When we strip it down, is this not really about trying to set up a whole series of complicated and uncertain hurdles so that employers or the Government can say that strike action has taken place illegally or unlawfully, and then set about trying to fine trade unions and scupper the democratic right to strike? In the Conservative party, there is a tradition of trying to avoid what it would call heavy-handed state interference in matters. Is the Government’s approach not heavy-handed state interference in the management of independent trade unions? They are trying to determine what picket supervisors and pickets will and will not say to people who have voted for strike action.
Kevin Hollinrake
The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that the legislation balances the rights of individuals to access vital public services with the rights of people to go on strike. That is the simple balance that we are trying to strike. At times the Government have to step in, and we should always use legislation as a last resort. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has been our political philosophy, but bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of hospital appointments that have been cancelled and the billions of pounds in costs for the hospitality sector, particularly over last winter, it is right to have a better balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of workers in this area.
I will summarise the reasonable steps. First, a trade union should identify the workers who are its members in a work notice. That will enable the union to take reasonable steps regarding those workers. Secondly, trade unions should send an individual communication or notice, known as a compliance notice, to each member identified in a work notice to advise them not to strike during the periods in which they are required by the work notice to work, as well as to encourage them to comply with a work notice. Thirdly, trade unions should instruct picket supervisors to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, picketers avoid trying to persuade members who are identified in a work notice not to cross the picket lines at times when they are required by the work notice to work.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the requirement that a trade union, with perhaps as little as four days’ notice, identify its members that have been issued with work notices in disputes potentially involving hundreds of thousands of workers across hundreds of workplaces is entirely impracticable? It risks exposing even the trade unions that work 24/7 to fulfil their obligations under the code of practice to a disproportionate and unfair penalty.
Kevin Hollinrake
No, we do not agree. The provisions and the code of practice are workable. As I have said, we undertook a consultation to make sure that that was the case, so we believe the proposals are workable.
Richard Burgon
I am sorry to draw a political parallel, but sometimes the parallel between politics and industrial practice is useful. It is the job of the Conservative party, in my area and others, to convince people to cast their vote for the Conservatives; it is the job of the Labour party to persuade local people to cast their vote for the Labour party. Is the requirement for trade unions to write to their members to tell them not to strike the industrial equivalent of requiring the Conservative party, in my constituency or others, to write to their own members telling them to vote Labour, or vice versa? Is it not a perverse interference to change the role of trade unions in a really authoritarian and heavy-handed way? The state interference here on behalf of employers in industrial disputes is quite appalling.
Kevin Hollinrake
More an intervention than a perverse interference, I would say, but the hon. Member is entitled to his view, which I respect. He may decide, as we have done on this subject, that we should agree to disagree.
Finally, once a work notice is received by the union, the trade union should ensure that it does not do other things to undermine the steps that it takes to meet the reasonable steps requirement. Actions taken to undermine the steps could include, for example, communicating with members whom the union knows is identified in a work notice, to induce them to strike. Where the trade union becomes aware of such actions to undermine the steps, the union should take swift action to negate any actions of union officials or members that seek to undermine the steps that the union has taken or will take to comply with the requirement in section 234E of the 1992 Act.
If a trade union failed to take reasonable steps as required by section 234E, that would mean that the strike is not protected under section 219 of the 1992 Act. As I have said, a court or tribunal could take the code into account in deciding whether reasonable steps had been taken. If the union protection is lost, the employer could seek damages from a trade union or an injunction to prevent the unprotected strike. Further, an employee taking part in a strike would lose the automatic protection from unfair dismissal under section 238A of the 1992 Act.
It is important to stress that the underlying requirement for a trade union is to act reasonably. For example, failure by a trade union to identify a small number of members, and the consequent missing out of those members from subsequent steps, may not constitute a failure in carrying out the overall obligation to take reasonable steps, as long as the trade union made a reasonable attempt to identify such members. Similarly, where the union takes steps to send promptly a compliance notice to members identified in a work notice, an accidental failure to reach a small number of identified members is unlikely to be a failure to take reasonable steps. In those scenarios, that would be for a court to determine, based on the facts of each case.
The code of practice under the Committee’s consideration has been designed to balance the objectives and benefits of the 2023 Act with the potential burdens of undertaking the reasonable steps, while providing guidance about a clear recommended route for trade unions to maintain their protections during strike action. It will help to provide clarity to employers and union members on what to expect leading up to, and on the day of, strike action where a work notice has been given to secure a minimum service level. It will also provide a greater level of assurance for trade union members who have been required to work as part of a work notice and will be encouraged to do so by the trade union, and therefore increase the likelihood that minimum service levels will be achieved.
If Parliament approves the code, it will be issued and brought into effect by the Secretary of State in accordance with the procedure set out in section 204 of the 1992 Act.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Can the Minister give us a ballpark figure for how many trade unions and how many private sector employers have been engaged in the development of the code?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not have those figures to hand, but perhaps I will be able to give them to the hon. Member by the time of my closing speech. I would imagine that quite a number of trade unions were engaged. [Interruption.] It is quite a controversial piece of legislation, as the hon. Member knows, and it attracted a lot of attention. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Is that surprising?
The Government’s intention is for the code to be in effect before the regulations implementing minimum service levels come into force. To achieve that, the Government are planning for the code to come into effect shortly after the commencement order relating to it is laid.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Nokes. I draw the Committee’s attention to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
I thank the Minister for his introduction. However, it will come as no surprise to him that the Opposition will oppose the code of practice. He described it as controversial, which is an understatement. We remain clear in our view that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act is fundamentally unworkable and places undue limitations on an individual’s freedom of association. These freedoms have been fought for and won over many decades, and they deserve much better than to be chipped away and undermined in the way that we see before us today. Labour has promised to repeal the legislation when we get into government, and we stand by that pledge.
“Reasonable steps” is a pivotal phrase that jumps out at anyone reading the Act. It stands out so much not only because it is vague and is left undefined in the primary legislation, but because the phrase’s definition carries hugely punitive consequences for those who get it wrong. It determines whether a union’s actions could leave it liable to proceedings in tort for sums that would be likely to bankrupt it. It could also see an individual worker’s protections against unfair dismissal removed. Those are not issues that as legislators we can ignore.
How “reasonable steps” is defined is a fundamental part of the legislation. As the Bill progressed through the House, we repeatedly asked for greater clarity as to what it meant. Time and again, we asked what constituted “reasonable steps”. In response, all we got from the Minister was that it would be for a court to decide.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend and I have many things in common, one of which is that we were both trade union lawyers, which Government Members perhaps think are not a good thing. Why are the Government so keen to give so much business to employment lawyers? The code of practice’s use of the phrase that my hon. Friend has just mentioned—“reasonable steps”—is a lawyer’s dream, whether they be on the employer’s side or the workers’ side. In legal libraries across the country, there are fat books of case law to determine what is and is not reasonable in various employment situations. The code is a recipe for further clogging up the courts, and it will cost further money for both trade unions and employers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely ridiculous?
Justin Madders
Yes. We both have some industrial experience of how this works, so we can see what is going to happen. There has been no regulatory impact assessment for the code of practice. If there had been, it would have produced some eye-watering numbers on what it will mean for legal costs not just for trade union members, but in the end for the taxpayer, because a lot of the disputes will involve public sector employers.
During the passage of the Bill, the Minister’s refrain was that it is for the courts to decide, but even after the code of practice is issued, it will still be up to the courts to decide. There are still so many ambiguities and unanswered questions. The fact that we had to vote on such an important piece of legislation without any clarity about what “reasonable steps” meant shows that this debate is taking place 10 months too late. As elected legislators, we really should have known what this all meant before being asked to vote on a Bill that was passed into law. That is no way to go on, and it is by no means the only example of this Government rushing through legislation without an adequate opportunity for scrutiny.
Let us be honest: we were told at the time that there was an urgent need for this legislation, and that it needed to be rushed through a Committee of the whole House in just one day. That was back in January. We are now in November, so in reality we could have had a proper Bill Committee stage and evidence sessions in which these issues were properly debated and voted on. Will the Minister tell us whether the rush at the start of the year was because the Government did not want scrutiny of the Bill? Or was it because they were making it up as they went along?
The provisions before us are at odds with expectations about what the Act was meant to deliver. The code of practice does not alleviate any of our concerns about the workability of the legislation. Actually, it adds more levels of concern, complexity and ambiguity. It contains provisions that go well beyond what was discussed and included in the Act, and it contains language that is at odds with ministerial comments at the Dispatch Box. Many important elements are left undefined, presumably for the court to pass judgment on at some point—not to mention the inconsistencies in the code’s guidance, which I will come on to. Unreasonable expectations are also being placed on unions to police the behaviour of their members, and there are excessive diktats on the language to be used in communications between a trade union and its members.
The Minister says that measure has been produced as a result of consultation, but we know that most of the employers’ organisations, never mind the trade unions, think that this is a complete mess. The reason why it is still before us today shows us everything about where the Conservative party is coming from with this legislation. The document deliberately defines the phrase “reasonable steps” in a way that is designed to infringe on a trade union’s actions to a degree that is not in line with the Act’s stated policy aim, which is to reduce disruption during strikes. Put simply, we believe that the code seeks to further restrict the right to strike and limit the lawful actions of trade unions during a period of industrial action.
Turning to the first recommended step—the “identification of members”—it is clear that the interpretation that the code offers is unduly burdensome on unions. It imposes tight deadlines and has the effect of creating confusion. That is before we look at whether this can be done in a GDPR-compliant manner. The Minister did not really address the concerns that several hon. Members raised about what happens in a workplace where more than one trade union is recognised by the employer. Of course, that is quite commonplace.
Paragraph 19 is the most important part of this section of the code of practice. It states:
“Unions should begin identifying their members who are subject to the work notice as soon as reasonably practical after receiving a work notice”.
That means that with potentially as little as seven days’ notice, a union would have to comb through a list—most likely just a list of names—and pick out its members who could be involved in a particular industrial dispute. But not only that: due to an employer’s right to vary a work notice up to four days prior to strike action, that work could be in vain. I will return to that issue shortly. To me, this responsibility seems particularly onerous. We should remember that the sectors in which work notices can be introduced have vast workforces and can be national in scope. It is quite possible that an industrial dispute could involve hundreds of thousands of workers across the country and potentially impact hundreds of different workplaces.
For example, the RMT has highlighted that during a multi-train company dispute, similar to the one that has taken place over the past 18 months, a number of employers could send more than 10,000 names, comprising 100 different grades working at 100 different locations. To provide unions with a matter of days to sort through such an expansive list and identify which members could be impacted by the strike is an enormous undertaking. I am sure that if such an obligation was placed on a business, Ministers would be jumping up and down about all the extra red tape, but we know that this Government do not judge trade unions by the same standards.
One could even take the view that this expectation is designed to be completely impossible, especially given that there is no guarantee that employers will provide defining characteristics alongside the names. That means that the union may not be able to differentiate between two people with exactly the same name or a similar surname, for example. The guidance addresses that by stating that unions “may wish” to engage with employers ahead of strike action on how work notices can be designed to avoid that. That will depend on employers’ co-operation, although, as we have heard, they will be subject not to a statutory code of practice, but to non-binding guidance, which gives us no guarantee that they will co-operate at all.
What steps will the Minister take to address that? Will action be taken against employers that fail to engage with unions to help them to differentiate workers? How will the Minister ensure that any union conducting strike action in the short term will receive work notices that allow them to differentiate names on the list? Will they be offered dispensation if they are unable to identify any workers within a very tight deadline?
Paragraph 20 of the code offers guidance on employers’ ability to vary work notices at four days’ notice. It is hard to understand how that provision could not be deliberately designed to cause confusion and undermine trade unions. What will happen if an employer varies a notice over a bank holiday weekend, or even at Easter, when there is a bank holiday either side of the weekend? Are trade unions expected to have people perpetually on call during such periods just in case another notice is issued? The code makes no mention of bank holidays and weekends, so might a union be asked to respond to hundreds of varied work notices at two days’ notice—or even one day’s notice—with no leeway given?
Neil Coyle
If employers are not compelled to share information, is this dog’s dinner of legislation even remotely workable?
Justin Madders
The overwhelming response to the consultation on the measure, and to that on the original Bill, was that the process will be very difficult in practice. That is because it is not about providing minimum service levels, but about trying to stop trade unions from exercising their lawful and democratic right to take industrial action.
The instruction at paragraph 25 of the code of practice that a union should send its compliance notice to its members “by electronic means” is the biggest irony in all this, because the Government have sat on a review on e-balloting for industrial disputes for some five years, yet made no attempt to implement it. Does the Minister finally accept that it might be reasonable to allow trade unions to enter the 21st century, with industrial action communications sent by email? Does he accept that that should include the actual balloting for industrial action? It is inconsistent, to say the least, that the code of practice specifically instructs unions to contact members about industrial action electronically, yet the law specifically prohibits them from balloting their members by email. I know that the Minister has had a lot of practice in e-balloting from his party’s leadership contests, so does he now accept that it should be possible to ballot trade union members on industrial action electronically?
Paragraph 25 further states that
“if the union is aware that any member will be unlikely to access electronic communications before the…strike”
it should send notice by “first class post” instead. What on earth does that mean? Is a union to require a read receipt from every member to form a view of whether they are likely to access their emails? Does the Minister realise that even four days’ notice would be asking rather a lot of Royal Mail, leaving aside bank holidays and weekends, because the latest stats on the delivery of first-class mail show that it is well below its performance targets?
The most problematic aspect of the code is probably paragraph 20, given its provisions on varying work notices. Anyone tasked with ensuring that all the right members are contacted within the incredibly tight timescale of seven days will experience a logistical nightmare, and that would only be exacerbated by the option of amendment only four days out.
Sadly, the provision leaves the door open to employers to deliberately and purposefully issue erroneous work notices in the first instance, only to vary them closer to the relevant date with a view to undermining industrial action. Members should not forget that “four days before” can start at 11.59 pm on the relevant day, effectively leaving three days. While the motivation might not be malevolent—it could be due to negligence—the practical effect of the requirement will be that a union would be expected to contact an employee to encourage them to attend work on the day of a strike, but then say to them a couple of days later, “Actually, you don’t need to attend,” while telling a whole new set of people that they need to attend. It is not hard to see how that could be abused to create an air of confusion on the part of the worker as to whether they are meant to be on strike or at work. When the consequences for making a mistake are so great, it is understandable that a worker would be likely to err on the side of caution and attend the workplace. Of course, all the energy and time expended on deciding who needs to get a notice and who does not could be spent on trying to resolve the dispute.
All those problems are compounded by a contradiction in the code of practice. Paragraph 19 indicates that, under the duty, a union is expected to take reasonable steps to contact members included in a work notice as soon as is “reasonably practical”.
Mick Whitley
Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about why the onus for communicating with members who have been named in work notices has been placed on unions, rather than on employers, which routinely communicate with their employees as a matter of course? Does he also worry, as I do, that given the difficulties that unions often encounter in contacting members, the measure greatly increases the likelihood of workers being subject to disciplinary action and even dismissal?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the code puts the onus on trade unions. How odd is it that we are in a world in which a Government instruct a trade union to tell employees to attend the workplace? I cannot think of anything more bizarre. But the measure is not actually about ensuring that people attend work; it is about undermining collective industrial action. From what we have seen today, it is clear that that is exactly the Government’s intention.
The trade union’s duty to take reasonable steps to contact members as soon as is “reasonably practical”, contained in paragraph 19, is contradicted in step 2 of the code, which provides guidance on how to encourage members to comply with a work notice. In this step, the code states that once a union has identified all its members, it should communicate this to them via a compliance notice. Paragraph 23 states that the union
“should send the compliance notice before the strike action”
but that it would be “reasonable” to send the notice
“once it is clear that the work notice will not be subject to variation by the employer—either because the last day on which the employer can vary the work notice without the union’s agreement has passed or because the employer has notified the union in writing that it will not vary the work notice”.
That is completely inconsistent with what the code of practice states earlier—that the union should contact its members as soon as is “reasonably practical”. They cannot both be right. Given the consequences of getting this wrong for both the trade union and the individual, the code of practice really ought not to contain such a mixed message. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a union is supposed to wait until the conditions in paragraph 23 are met, or just get on with it as soon as is “reasonably practical”, as paragraph 19 suggests?
Beyond that issue, the code’s recommendations on encouraging members to comply with a work notice are plainly unreasonable, misleading and complex. Step 2 of the code contains stipulations that are drafted in such a way that grounds for legal challenge will inevitably be opened. Paragraph 26 and annex A, in particular, can be seen to do this. Paragraph 26 includes a list of eight features that a compliance notice must state “clearly and conspicuously”, and annex A contains a pro forma template for unions to use, which is recommended for use by unions at paragraph 27. Paragraph 27 states that a union can amend the template but that the compliance notice must retain
“the overall substance and effect of the notice”.
So why go down this road at all? Why go to the trouble of drafting a template letter and then say that unions can vary it? Is that not just inviting trouble?
We know that the slightest transgression in an industrial action ballot can lead some employers to seek injunctions, even though the practical effect of that transgression is nil, so there is a concern that any deviations from the template will invite legal challenge from employers. The TUC believes that deviations
“will almost certainly lead some employers to seek to legally challenge unions”.
Does the Minister agree with that point of view? How does he think that such satellite litigation will aid the resolution of industrial disputes? Can he also explain the rationale for including a pro forma template on top of the guidance contained in paragraph 26?
Unfortunately, that is not the only way in which the code could instigate legal challenge. Plenty of areas in the code appear to allow for challenges if the union makes an error. Paragraph 39, for instance, states:
“communicating with members whom the union knows are identified in a work notice to induce them to strike”
could constitute an act that undermines steps taken to comply with a work notice. Taken literally, that means that for the period of the work notice, the trade union cannot contact any member subject to one at all with any information on the industrial action. Is the Minister saying that on certain occasions, for a certain period, a trade union cannot contact some members to tell them what is happening with the strike? The mere mention that a strike is taking place could be considered an inducement to strike. I am interested to hear what the Minister says about that, because to me it looks like a fundamental attack on democratic freedoms.
If the Minister does not accept that that is the intention behind paragraph 39, does he accept that there could be a real problem in some circumstances—for example, where there is a technological or administrative error in distributing emails on a mailing list that could risk some of the wrong members receiving that email? Trade unions in those circumstances would lose their protection from liability in tort and employees would lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal. Is that really what is intended with the code of practice, because that is what paragraph 39 seems to suggest?
The stakes are far too high for such an error to constitute a breach of the code, especially given that the names included in the work notice are liable to change, often at short notice. As there is already guidance in the code stating that compliance notices should include statements telling those on work notices to ignore calls to take part in strikes, paragraphs 38 to 40 seem excessively punitive and unnecessary. The only conclusion that one can draw from such a communication—a blackout around strikes—is that this is a deliberate attempt to undermine trade unions and impact the effectiveness of industrial action.
I will return briefly to the annex and paragraph 26; this is an example of the state trying to dictate the contents of a union’s communications with its members. First, according to the stipulation in paragraph 26(f), unions are expected to encourage workers to undertake the work set out in the work notices. We think it is inappropriate for a union to encourage a worker to comply with a work notice, as it could undermine the collective endeavour of industrial action. Yes, a union must advise a worker of the possible consequences of failing to comply with a work notice, but it is not the role of the state to instruct a union to do that in an enthusiastic way, as is implied in the code of practice.
What does “encourage” even mean? Is it like a football supporter encouraging their team from the terraces and cheering the team on? Is it sending text messages to a mobile phone with affirming messages such as “Please go to work today. I know you’ve got this”? It seems a very odd thing to request that a trade union encourage its members to go to work, given that presumably on every other day, the employee does not require such encouragement to turn up and do their job.
Chris Stephens
Is there not another concern that trade unions have flagged up? Trade union representatives will be identified in the work notices, so the trade union representative will be the one who is picked to, effectively, bust their own industrial action.
Justin Madders
Yes, I will get on to that—there is a bit more, I am afraid, Ms Nokes, because there is an awful lot to talk about. The measure fundamentally pits trade unionists against their core beliefs and principles. That does not seem to register with Government Members, but it really is doing that.
The requirement to encourage members to turn up for work is an odd thing to request, given the failure to explain the legal issues with the necessary accuracy in paragraph 26, which states that unions are advised to tell members that they should receive from the employer
“a statement that the member is an identified worker…and must comply with the…notice given to the union.”
But there is no obligation under the Act for an employer to communicate with workers named by the work notice. Employers need do so only if they want to keep open the option for dismissing them for not attending work. If not, they can let the trade union do all the work.
The code also states that the compliance notice should contain a comment stating that two notices should be received from the employer and that if the member receives both, they
“must carry out the work during the strike or could be subject to disciplinary proceedings which could include dismissal”.
However, the Act gives neither the employer nor the Government the power to compel people to attend work. What it actually does is state that a worker who has been notified by the employer that they are named in the work notice may be dismissed and denied the automatic right to protection from unfair dismissal for taking part in the strike. The code does not highlight that a worker who was dismissed might still be able to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under the general law.
The code and template letter are therefore misleading. But why do they have any reference to dismissal at all? The template requires the union to warn a member that
“you could also be dismissed as a result”
of not following the work notice. However, that is not what the Minister told us would happen. When he was at the Dispatch Box on Monday 22 May 2023, he said:
“The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of the legislation.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 103.]
If that still stands, why does the code of practice require unions to warn people of something that is not going to happen? Why would the Minister ask unions to write to their members about something that he said at the Dispatch Box would not happen? I invite him to withdraw his comments or, ideally, withdraw the whole draft code.
The compliance notice template in annex A states:
“The work required of you should be work which you normally do or work which you are capable of doing and is within your contract of employment.”
Can the Minister tell us whether the notice remains effective if it requires someone to undertake a role with which they are not familiar? After all, many contracts of employment have a catch-all clause requiring employees to undertake whatever duties their employer sees fit. At the very least, there ought to be some guidance on what the employee should do if they face such a request. That point also raises the question of what happens if a non-union member is included in a work notice, but the employer fails to contact them. Would they be subject to disciplinary procedures as well? Both those examples show how far the code is from providing certainty; it just adds more complexity and confusion.
The code of practice’s guidance on picketing is an element that came as a surprise, as there was no mention of it at all in the Act. It is covered by different legislation and a different code of practice. There was next to no discussion of picketing when the Bill passed through Parliament, so its inclusion in the code of practice is another example of the way in which this Government have sidestepped scrutiny at every opportunity. I see no legitimate reason for its inclusion; it seems that it is an attempt to expand the scope of the legislation via the back door. That is at complete odds with the purpose of a code of practice that is supposed to put flesh on the bones of how an Act works, not to expand its reach.
Step 3 of the code is simply titled “Picketing”. It sets standards on the union to instruct picket supervisors. Paragraph 33 states that
“the union should…use reasonable endeavours to ensure that picketers avoid, so far as reasonably practicable, trying to persuade members who are identified on the work notice not to cross the picket line at times when they are required by the work notice to work.”
The irony of a code of practice explaining what is meant by the term “reasonable steps” by using the phrase “reasonable endeavours” is certainly not lost on me. It is not exactly a great leap forward, is it? Using “reasonable endeavours” not to do something is a novel concept: it is usually a concept applicable where there are positive obligations on someone to act. I struggle to see how that translates into a negative obligation.
Certainly, nothing that I have heard today explains what that means in practice. But that is the point, isn’t it? This and many other areas in the code of practice leave important questions open to interpretation by the courts. It will take a case making its way to court, and probably several levels of appeal, before it becomes clear what “reasonable endeavours” a union must actually take to prevent members persuading those on a work notice not to cross a picket line. The weight of the punishments that the union and its workforce could be forced to pay will doubtless mean that unions will be cautious about how this works in practice.
This is a legal nonsense. It is quite blatantly a tactic from the Government to attack a union’s right to strike by blunting some of its most effective tools. However, it is a tactic that will add to court backlogs, as we have heard, and will cost the taxpayer, unions and businesses large sums of money when all these issues end up being litigated. Ultimately, it will do absolutely nothing to improve industrial relations in this country.
I will return to the crux of the extract from which I quoted: that picketers should not try to persuade workers listed in a work notice to join them on strike. It is clearly drafted to completely undermine the role of a picket, to the extent that it will be unworkable and difficult to enforce. How is a picket supervisor supposed to know who is on a work notice, especially if the notice runs to hundreds or even thousands of people? Are they expected to know them by appearance? Unless they are told otherwise, picketers are therefore going to have no idea who is bound by the work notice and who is not.
It is completely unclear how the picket supervisors, who are expected to execute this duty and enforce this measure, will be able to do so in practice. The aim of the picket is to encourage compliance with the strike, but the picket supervisor is expected to undertake duties well beyond ensuring that a worker named in a work notice simply is not hindered in going into work. It is another fundamental attack on the role of trade unions. Does the Minister understand that he is asking trade unions to turn on their core beliefs and jettison the very essence of what they stand for?
It is also unclear whether the Government have considered the case of Ezelin v. France, as the TUC’s submissions recommend. In that case, the European Court of Human Rights found that requiring a lawyer to disassociate himself from a demonstration infringed his rights under article 11 of the European convention on human rights? A response on that issue from the Minister, either in his closing speech or in writing after today’s proceedings, would be appreciated.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will draw to a conclusion. We are being asked to vote on a code of practice that goes far beyond the legislation that it is meant to explain. It places potentially insurmountable burdens on unions, leaves important legal questions unanswered, requires unions to be the mouthpiece of the state and expects unions to enforce a draconian piece of legislation that goes against the very essence of their values. To top it all off, there is the threat, should unions not follow the guidance to the letter, of having to pay out exorbitant costs through proceedings in tort and of leaving all their striking workers vulnerable to being sacked.
It is clear what the code of practice seeks to achieve. As we said of the Act throughout its passage, it is an attack on trade unions and their members, and it undermines the fundamental right to strike. We cannot vote for it. No one who believes in freedom of association can vote for it in good conscience. The Government need to go back to the drawing board and redraft the code of practice—or, better still, get rid of the Act altogether.
The Chair
Order. A number of Members wish to speak. I will call members of the Committee first. Our deliberations have to conclude by 6 pm.
Chris Stephens
Thank you, Ms Nokes. I am surprised to have been called so early in the debate, because I was expecting finally to hear some sort of philosophical introduction or support from Government Back Benchers, but as we saw during the passage of the Bill, Government Back Benchers usually walk out and take their own industrial action—but without a ballot, I hasten to add, unlike the trade union movement. I thought that some Government Back Bencher would try to bind the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the code of practice together through some sort of philosophical introduction or ethos, so I am disappointed.
Even more incredible than what the Minister said to me was what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. The Minister said that there was no requirement for guidance for employers. Then, in reply to an intervention from the hon. Member for York Central, he said that there would be guidance but that it would not be statutory guidance. That is utterly ridiculous. If a Government were even-handed, they would have two statutory instruments together—one for trade unions and one for employers—so that everybody was clear.
We know what the game is here: to allow employers to use the legislation to bust industrial action. The Government know that the game is up. What is it about workers having decent wages that the Government are so repelled by? Why are they so repelled by workers standing up for good terms and conditions and having those wages to support their families? Is it because, if we had had consistent Conservative party rule since the 1800s, we would still have children going up chimneys? Or is it because, in the 1990s, as we all remember, the Conservative party bitterly opposed the original minimum wage legislation and that, after an acrimonious debate—
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Can I bring the hon. Member slightly more up to date? Could he cast his mind back to the 1970s, when industrial relations legislation introduced by the Heath Government ended up with five dockers being put in prison? They were then released. It was a headlong clash with the trade union movement, and it resulted in mass strikes all over the country.
Chris Stephens
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The Conservative party never forgave the trade union movement for defeating the Heath Government in the ’70s. It still remembers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, it has not legislated for Government Ministers. When they decided to go on strike—when they all walked out together—they did so without a ballot, let us remember. That was inconveniencing the public, was it not?
Kevin Hollinrake
I just want to point out that there is a difference between going on strike and resigning, though the hon. Gentleman might not understand it. There are no restrictions in the code or anywhere else that stop someone from resigning, which is what those Government Ministers did.
Chris Stephens
I think the Minister will find that it was co-ordinated action and that, unlike trade union action, no ballot was required.
David Linden
My hon. Friend will be aware that it was actually worse than that. What those Ministers were doing was practising fire and rehire: they resigned, and many of them were then reinstated in their previous job. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for example. Perhaps the Minister may be just a little bit out of touch with what went on.
Chris Stephens
I say this charitably: as good-natured as the Minister can be, he is often accused by me and others of not understanding what actually takes place in an organised workplace. It is quite clear that Government Ministers collectively organised to leave their posts, causing huge inconvenience to the public, but I do not see delegated legislation to impose minimum service levels on Government Ministers.
Neil Coyle
Isn’t that because the public could not tell the difference between when they were in office and when they resigned?
Chris Stephens
That may very well be the case. The hon. Member makes an eloquent point.
Rachael Maskell
Every single day this Government are in office, they are unable to maintain minimum service levels across a vast array of our public services, so why does the hon. Gentleman think they are requiring more workers to attend work on strike days than the rest of the year?
Chris Stephens
That is a magnificent point. This has been debated on various occasions on which we have asked the Government—perhaps the Minister will rise to his feet; I will take his intervention right now—why minimum service levels are necessary on industrial action days, but not at any other time. If there were statutory guidance and a code of practice for employers, one would certainly ask the question: would employers demand that there be more workers on shift on days of industrial action than on a normal working day? The Minister knows this, because it has been raised consistently when we discuss these things that employers are always at it.
I was a proud trade union activist. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud member of the Glasgow city branch of Unison. We had to negotiate life-and-limb cover for strike days—yes, the legislation sets out that there has to be life-and-limb cover—and employers would ask for more people on shift on days of industrial action than on normal working days. I will take an intervention right now if the Minister can give us an assurance that no employer across these islands will ask more workers to be at work on days of industrial action than on normal working days. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Minister right now.
I note for the record that the Minister has not risen to his feet.
Since the passage of the anti-strike Act, there have been suggestions that the Act’s provisions on minimum service levels would be similar to the norms of Europe. Well, no, they are not. I will not repeat all the clarifications that I and others have offered on what actually happens in Europe, as those fell on deaf ears. I will, however, repeat our warnings that this nasty legislation will prove to be severely counterproductive and damaging overall to society. Taking a negotiated, voluntary and successful approach to minimal service levels and mutating it into an imposed, coercive and ultimately failed system is very foolish, but it is unsurprising from those who choose not to listen or learn.
Let me comment in detail on one sector in particular: the health sector. I will do so by referring extensively to the TUC’s consultation response on minimum service levels for hospital services. I will also refer to the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.
The TUC believes that the Act
“is unfair, undemocratic and likely in breach of our international legal commitments.”
Its view is that it is
“the fundamental right of a worker to take industrial action to defend their pay and conditions”
and that
“secretaries of state are to be given enormous power to define and introduce minimum service requirements”.
It says the Act is
“draconian: it could lead to individual workers being sacked for taking part in industrial action that was supported in a democratic process”,
with trade unions facing large damages if deemed to be non-compliant with this code of practice. Perhaps the Minister will answer the question with which he was challenged by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Minister was quoted as saying that no one would be dismissed as a result of this legislation, but where does it say that?
According to the TUC, the Act is “unnecessary”—it is “custom and practice” to agree “life-and-limb cover”—and “counter-productive”. That, however, is not the view of only the TUC, which points out that the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that
“industrial disputes are likely to become more protracted and prolonged as a result of introducing minimum service levels”.
In summary, the TUC believes the approach is unacceptable, anti-democratic, draconian and, ultimately, both unnecessary and counterproductive.
Given the purpose of this Delegated Legislation Committee, a further quote from the TUC might prove to be the undoing of the code of practice:
“Given the fact that the services subject to MSLs are to be determined by Secondary Legislation, there remains a number of uncertainties around (a) the extent to which the policy would restrict the right to strike, (b) the relationship between the ability to strike and the strength of workers’ ability to bargain on terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining, and (c) the value workers place on collective bargaining relating to terms and conditions of employment.”
Those comments are also derived from the Government’s impact assessment.
Conservative Members may simply choose to disregard the findings of such an impact assessment. They would find interesting backers in doing so, as the Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee judged the impact assessment of the Act
“red-rated as not fit-for-purpose”,
and found that the Government make
“use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported by evidence”—
here is us thinking that the Boris Johnson days were gone. There are other, less parliamentary ways to describe making use of assumptions that are not supported by the evidence, which I will leave to the imagination of Members.
Let us now explore the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. Agreement among health sector unions is clear, as the BMA also considers the proposals for minimum strike levels to be
“counterproductive, undemocratic, unworkable, and draconian”.
The legislation seems to be little more than a smokescreen. Instead of addressing the state of the NHS, which currently compromises patient safety on a daily basis, or the underlying reasons why doctors and other healthcare staff have been striking in some parts of the UK, if not in others, the Government are trying to paint healthcare workers as the villains of the piece, rather than the victims of governmental action and inaction. I specifically mention striking “in some parts of the UK,” because a different and more respectful approach to public service employees in Scotland has resulted in something closer to industrial harmony. Perhaps others should watch and learn from what the Scottish Government are achieving in public sector relations.
Throughout these islands, a long-standing history of constructive joint working between NHS employers and trade unions at a local level has patient safety at its heart. The introduction of minimum service levels in hospitals would poison those industrial relations. It would replace a system under which those who understand the local situation tailor their response to the needs of hospital service users with a national service level mandated from Whitehall and designed by those who arrogantly assume that they know better.
Although the Government’s consultation seemed to find that several critical incidents arose due to strike action, data from a freedom of information request suggests otherwise. It is unclear whether any were a direct result of action being called. Rather than demonstrating that patient safety was compromised due to industrial action, the data shows the importance of tackling the stresses that the NHS faces on a daily basis.
The BMA has repeatedly raised concerns that the “reasonable steps” that unions would be required to take to comply with the Act would force unions to act in a way that undermines their responsibility to represent their members. It is not “reasonable” to expect unions to take any steps that would undermine legitimate strike action, for which they will have passed a high threshold to have a lawful mandate under trade union legislation.
Mick Whitley
I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union. The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Does he share my concern that by allowing employers to amend work notices up to the end of the fourth day before industrial action commences, the code risks allowing unscrupulous employers to create formidable and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for trade unions to overcome, thereby giving employers the opportunity to intentionally undermine entirely legitimate and otherwise lawful strike action?
Chris Stephens
I agree with all that. I know that this will surprise some Conservative Members, but I do believe that there are unscrupulous employers out there. I believe that unscrupulous employers already use existing anti-trade union legislation to try to stop industrial action taking place with some daft minutiae over lists of members and so on. The point I was making is the Government have already imposed extremely high thresholds that trade unios must cross before industrial action takes place.
The draft code of practice does not achieve the necessary clarity of what the duty will mean in practice for trade unions. Instead it presents issues for trade unions over how they will be able practically to implement the proposals. It creates incredibly unrealistic timescales on unions, requiring them to start identifying members
“as soon as reasonably practical”
after receiving a work notice. Such weasel words threaten vindictive penalties for being unable to guess what a Conservative Minster thinks is “reasonable”.
I will refer to some surprising comments from the Royal College of Nursing. They are surprising because the RCN was advised that the legislation would not affect it at all, but perhaps it was not too surprised to discover that that was not the case. A Minister at the Dispatch Box told nurses that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill was “not about nurses.” That was always flagrantly untrue, as the RCN clearly stated at the time. Specifically, the Leader of the House said on 26 January 2023 that the Bill was “not about nurses”, and that it was “wrong” to suggest that it was.
Through its draft regulations for NHS ambulance services and the NHS patient transport service, the Government are now explicitly seeking to impose minimum service levels that apply specifically to nursing staff in ambulance services. The RCN asks that Parliament, including Members present here, should hold the Government to their words and reject regulations that would impose minimum service levels on nursing staff.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of Unison in Glasgow. All the concerns that he has raised about how the code applies to the NHS, and particularly how it applies to nurses, have been raised with me by constituents. They are incredibly concerned about the pernicious nature of the Government’s legislation and their actions more generally. My hon. Friend was right to say earlier that the way to avoid strike action in the NHS and across our public services is to have decent industrial relations, to invest in them properly, and to welcome people into this country who are willing to supplement the workforce, which is so desperately crying out for more pairs of hands.
Chris Stephens
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister takes that on board because good industrial relations mean a happy workforce, and there is actually less industrial action when we have good industrial relations.
I will conclude, Ms Nokes, with some comments about Scotland. That will not surprise you, nor anyone in this Committee. I have already referred to how a different and more respectful approach towards public service employees in Scotland has resulted in greater harmony and far fewer strikes. The RCN explicitly recognised that the imposition of the proposed code of practice on Scotland and Wales would be additionally problematic, as it would explicitly contradict the wishes of the elected devolved Administrations. We will look to see whether the UK Government can echo a similar respect for Scottish rights and autonomy as that shown by trade union colleagues south of the border.
Rachel Hopkins
I am grateful, Ms Nokes, for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on his excellent speech, which set out all the problems with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, the draft regulations and the code of practice that we are considering today. I agree that the measure is draconian, unnecessary and unworkable. Indeed, as the Minister himself said, it is controversial.
The right to strike is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the International Labour Organisation’s convention No. 87 and paragraph 4 of article 6 of the European social charter. Fundamentally, those standards are flouted by the whole set-up of the regulations, the Act and the code of practice. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, when public services are struggling and many are on their knees, this Government have chosen to play politics and attack a fundamental right of workers through the introduction of these minimum service levels. That is solely to undermine collective bargaining and collective organisation, as set out by others.
Many of the details of my concerns have already been laid out in this debate, but I would like to flag up a couple of areas about not only the principles but the unworkability of this whole set-up. We have heard much about taking reasonable steps and issuing directions to employers on work that they are expected to do on strike days, but the code of practice itself interferes with a democratic trade union’s communications with employees.
As we have heard, disputes may involve many different employees in different workplaces, who may be members of different trade unions or none, yet we have not had real assurances that data will be protected, particularly under GDPR. We must remind the Minister that a person’s trade union membership status is a particularly special category of data, so I would like assurances that he has understood the implications of the complexity of this code of practice, which is still very opaque and, in fact, confused.
On timescales, we have heard how, given the amount of notice given and the ability later to amend the work notice, the measure could leave unions with three days to reach their members, and that could be over a weekend or a bank holiday. How does the Minister expect that to work in practice, or is he, again, just going to let that all fall through to be dealt with by the courts? It is disappointing to see the speed with which the Minister expects this to come into force. Usually employers have a six-month period to get used to legislative change, yet we are led to believe that this process will be in place from 7 December—that is in barely a week.
While we will obviously want trade unions to be able to meet their obligations if this measure is passed— I put on record my desire to vote against it today, and I hope that we will all get the ability to vote against it as a whole House—I ask the Minister why it has been brought in so quickly. Not only are we dealing with a very opaque set of regulations and code of practice—even more time than usual is needed to consider how things will actually work in practice—but I believe that the Minister is setting employers, trade unions and indeed the Government themselves up for failure by bringing in legislation with such speed and without a real ability for all parliamentarians to scrutinise it thoroughly. I would really like to hear the Minister’s view of how employers are going to respond on 8 December when they are faced with having to deal with this alone. Does he have any thoughts on how trade unions will deal with this?
I would like some clarity on the stated design of the code of practice. It is the Government’s recognition of their own failure to just say, “That can be settled by the courts.” There is no confidence that the legislation is actually fit for purpose, but the Government are already washing their hands and saying, “We’ll let the courts decide.” Can we have clarity from the Minister about any Government assessment of the cost of litigation for trade unions, employers and, indeed, the Government themselves? So many questions have not been answered about the lack of clarity in this opaque code of practice. As I said, it is an admission of failure to leave so much to the courts, and far be it from me to say, but there will be plenty of employment lawyers taking up the work, sadly. Is that really a metric of success? I would argue that it is not.
I also want to reiterate the point so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West about ministerial comments in the Chamber that nobody will be sacked as a result of this legislation and that other disciplinary measures can apply. If that is the case, why is there a requirement for trade unions to warn their members that dismissal is an option? The Minister has said that that will not be the case, so can we have some clarity from him on how he reconciles those two points? I reiterate my question about the definition of reasonable endeavours with regard to picketing. It is thoroughly unclear—though, again, I presume that it will just be left for the courts to decide.
I appreciate that other Members want to speak, so I will conclude. This is not actually about a situation that the Government are trying to settle. It is fundamentally about attacking individuals’ right to strike, not improving industrial relations. As I said, I will be voting against the code.
David Linden
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. As others have done, I declare my trade union membership—I am a member of Unite. I found it mildly ironic that in the course of a debate about minimum service levels, at least one Conservative MP disappeared for the majority of the sitting only to come back, presumably to vote. I will not go as far as identifying that individual.
Before I go any further, I will pose a question to official Opposition Front Benchers. Can we get a commitment that any incoming Labour Government would repeal today’s legislation within their first 100 days? I am not the only one who has been slightly alarmed by the deviation of the current Labour leadership in terms of its commitment to workers’ rights. I think it is important to get that on record.
We find ourselves scrutinising this delegated legislation because earlier in the year, the Government brought forward a measure for a reason we all know: to have a pop at the likes of Mick Lynch. We know what happens when Governments try to legislate on the hoof as a result of press coverage: legislation tends to be rushed through and in the form of a dog’s dinner, and they then come forward with delegated legislation to try to tidy it up. I rather suspect that we will not be surprised to see further legislation at some point down the track. Members have outlined holes that are already in this code, and that is within only 75 minutes or so of scrutiny.
The first thing that concerns me is that the commencement of the regulations will come straight after approval from both Houses. The code of practice has to come into effect; that would be in mid-December, which is only a matter of weeks away. The very idea that Parliament, which we were told during the Brexit process was somehow taking back control, is having this kind of thing foisted upon it in a Delegated Legislation Committee raises a number of questions.
The regulations impose an effective strike ban. I do not want to detain the Committee for too long, but I draw attention to annex A of the draft code, which is absolutely wild. I do not know how many members of the Committee have actually looked at the Government’s draft code, but the idea is that a trade union official would be compelled to send a letter to its members, suggesting that they are required to work—the word “required” continues throughout the letter—beggars belief. The letter says:
“[Name of union] advises you not to strike…You should ignore any call to strike…we encourage you to notify the picket that you are required by the work notice to work at that time.”
The idea that the trade union official, who will probably be the picket supervisor, would be asked to send a copy of this letter, or a variation of it, really does beggar belief. It strikes me that whoever drafted this in Whitehall has absolutely no understanding whatever of trade union organisation, although that might not come as a surprise to many.
Patrick Grady
Is my hon. Friend concerned about the increasingly authoritarian approach of this Government? People are now required to turn up to polling stations with photo ID, and now they will need a slip to allow them to cross a picket line. Is this the kind of libertarian approach that people had originally expected from the Conservative party?
David Linden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not that long ago—only a couple of weeks back—that we had a Home Secretary who called for insurrection in Whitehall. The reality is that this Government have a questionable record when it comes to libertarian values, whether it is these restrictions, the—frankly—voter suppression mechanisms that they have brought forward, or the Public Order Act 2023, which seeks to curtail people’s basic rights to assemble and to demonstrate. We know that many provisions in the Government’s legislation have been criticised by the ILO for the fact that they go against the basic and most fundamental right for an employee to withdraw their labour.
I have particular concerns about the identification of members. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act mandates extremely tight timelines for the identification of members in work notices. Even Conservative Members struggled to keep a straight face when confronted by the contradiction of requiring a postal ballot for taking part in industrial action, but the issuing of work notices within the space of three or four days. That rather suggests that the Government are on shaky ground. The Minister would do well to reflect on that in his summing up.
Where union members do not have an email address, or have not shared their email address with the union, the union is expected to rely on sending information via the postal service. The code does not recognise that challenge. Given the way Royal Mail has decided to run its business in recent months and years, it is not uncommon for there to be a postal strike. We could have something of a perfect storm there.
The code states that unions should also tell a worker who is named in a work notice that they must
“carry out the work during the strike or could be subject to disciplinary proceedings which could include dismissal”.
I know that it is perhaps not normal for Conservative Members to be completely au fait with how the trade union movement works, but the absolute nonsense of a trade union writing to a member who has joined that trade union to collectively organise being threatened with disciplinary proceedings or dismissal really does make a mockery of the situation.
Many other hon. Members have referred to the fact that the original legislation, which was rushed through on the Floor of the House, made absolutely no reference to pickets. Yet—surprise, surprise—we get legislation that is pushed into a Delegated Legislation Committee. A rather stuffy delegated legislation Committee, in which I suspect most people are either playing Candy Crush or considering what to write in their Christmas cards, is debating legislation about strikes and picketing, when we were promised on the Floor of the House that that would not be the case.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is draconian legislation that attacks individuals’ fundamental rights while doing nothing whatever to improve industrial relations. At a minimum, the associated regulations—the provision that we are looking at now and the regulations that we will be looking at this evening—intended to implement it should be subject to proper scrutiny. Parliament must be given more time, sufficient time, to examine each of the regulations in proper detail and to consider the analysis of the Regulatory Policy Committee.
All of this makes the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North and for Glasgow South West and I, and indeed many other SNP Members in this place, have been sent here to stand up and make the argument for stronger workers’ rights. We were promised during the period of the Brexit referendum that Brexit would not be a bonfire of workers’ rights. Six or seven years down the line we are once again served up legislation in here that Scotland did not vote for, that Scotland opposes at every turn, and that I suspect in about six or seven minutes’ time will pass, because there is a democratic deficit in this place—and that makes the case for Scottish independence.
The Chair
I want to bring the Minister back in at about five minutes to 6. I call Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Ms Nokes; I will keep my comments incredibly short. I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am completely shocked and baffled as to why the Minister has brought forward these provisions today when he does not even understand the context of the impact that this will have on a multi-union workplace and the breaches of the GDPR that the employer will be subject to in sharing sensitive information about their employees with different trade unions. They will be able then to identify the people who are members of other trade unions. Therefore there will be a complete breach, which will clearly be challengeable in the courts. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but that will be the consequence.
I am also completely baffled in relation to the timetable. When it comes to balloting for industrial action, it takes months to organise an industrial action ballot. We are talking about complex public sector ballots on the whole. As a result, it is important to get the information accurate and permissible under the law. However, an anti-union employer will have only four days in which to provide the information to a trade union, and then it will be a case of cross-matching, getting a notice out by post, because obviously the union does not need to collect information on the email addresses of its members, and then giving the notification. It is an employer who has the responsibility for whether a worker goes to work or not. I say to the Minister that that obligation should not be placed on trade unions.
The Minister has not said what will happen to the worker’s protection if the worker does not receive the notice, and whether their protections will be removed and, as a result, they could end up with a dismissal, with no right of restitution at all. It is really important that the Minister brings clarity as to what will happen in those circumstances and, indeed, what will happen to the trade union if it makes efforts to comply with the legislation but is unable to do so because of the format and the way the data is provided. The Minister makes a lot of assumptions that the employer knows their workforces and who will be taking industrial action or not. I have to inform him that that is often not the case in these complex industrial environments.
The Minister is above this. I think the fact that he has brought this measure forward today just shows that he has not taken the time to understand the way industrial action ballots actually work and the consequences of this legislation.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act balances the ability to strike with the rights of the wider public, ensuring that lives and livelihoods are not put at risk. I will respond to one or two points; I probably will not be able to respond to all the points raised in this debate.
I say to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that there were 46 responses: 10 from members of the public and 36 from organisations, including trade unions, employers and local government representatives. That includes, on the union side, the TUC, ASLEF, the British Medical Association, the Fire Brigades Union, Unite, the RMT, Unison and the RCN.
The hon. Member for Luton South was absolutely right to mention the cost of living crisis. To respond to her point about why we are legislating at this point in time, it is because industrial action has an impact on other people’s jobs and livelihoods. There have been 4 million days lost through industrial action, 2 million appointments cancelled in the NHS and £3.5 billion in costs to the hospitality sector. That is why we are legislating as we are.
It is right that points were raised about ensuring that both unions and employers are able to identify people who have union membership so that unions can understand who has been named in a work notice. Paragraph 18 clearly sets out the opportunity for unions to engage with employers to establish the rules on how they will identify different individuals, such as using job title, name and place of work. We do not see that it will cause a problem. Employers and unions can go further than that and enter into a data sharing agreement, which is good practice within GDPR rules.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, referred to paragraph 39 and the work notice requirements. We do not feel that it is an onerous practice at all. It is quite clear that the union could communicate with its members not only about work notices but about the strike itself. The rules are set out clearly. He knows the courts very well; I cannot see anybody not being able to understand the rules in a way that would create an opportunity for somebody to challenge them in court. It is not complicated at all, in my view.
On the point about sacking, I am happy to make a clarification in terms of what I said on the Floor of the House at the time. I was quite clear in my opening remarks that protections are removed from disciplinary action against workers who do not comply with a work notice. It is our expectation that nobody would need to lose their job as a result of this legislation. There are other measures that can be taken in terms of disciplinary action. If people comply with this legislation, clearly nobody will lose their job.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry, but I will not have time to conclude the debate if I take interventions, which use up a lot of time during speeches. It is right that I conclude the debate.
If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West checks Hansard, he will see what I said in response to his intervention, which was that there is no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but guidance has been issued; it was published on 16 November. That is our view. I advise him to check Hansard. On his point about minimum service levels effectively requiring an increase in service levels, if he checks the guidance that we have put together for rail, it clearly stipulates 40% of the normal timetable. We are not expecting an increased level of service; we are just expecting a service.
To help to secure minimum service levels, it is vital that trade unionists take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are identified in a work notice comply with that notice and do not take strike action during the periods in which it requires them to work. It will help to provide a greater level of assurance that trade union members who are required to work as part of a work notice will be encouraged to do so by the trade union, and therefore increase the likelihood of minimum service levels being achieved.
Ultimately, the code will help all parties to achieve minimum service levels where they are applied, and moderate the disproportionate impact that strike action can have. I commend the code to the Committee.
David Linden
On a point of order, Ms Nokes. I beg to move, That the Committee sit in private.
Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Border Security) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Border Security) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 7 November.
The draft regulations will introduce new powers for the Secretary of State to create regulations that will prescribe minimum levels of service for certain sectors during strike action. Employers may issue a work notice in order to deliver those minimum service levels. The powers are available to the Secretary of State across a range of sectors, including health, education, transport, fire and rescue services, and border security.
The ability of staff to take strike action is an integral part of industrial relations. The security of our borders, however, is something that we cannot and will not compromise. To maintain services at our borders is essential to our security and prosperity as a nation. We depend on our skilled professionals to ensure that, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, our borders are strong and effective.
We must also consider the disruption caused to and costs incurred by passengers and businesses, who expect essential services they pay for to be there when they need them. We also have to consider the impact on those called in to cover for staff going on strike, including on members of our armed forces who, commendably, have stepped up to fill vital roles during recent industrial action. It would be irresponsible to rely on such short-term solutions indefinitely to protect our national security.
The Government assess that, in the event of strike action by those charged with securing our borders, there are significant risks to the safety of our communities. Criminals might seek to take advantage of strike action to enter our country or to move illicit commodities through our ports and airports. People smugglers might seek to exploit gaps in our patrol activity to land illegal migrants on our shores. For those reasons, the Government decided to include border security in the scope of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.
These draft border security regulations have two essential purposes: first, to make provision for minimum service levels during strikes regarding relevant border security services; and, secondly, to define those relevant border services. The regulations set out that border security services should be provided at a level that means they are
“no less effective than they would be if the strike were not taking place”.
The draft regulations set out that passport services such as those that
“are necessary in the interests of national security”
will be
“provided as they would be if the strike were not taking place on that day.”
They also define the relevant border services that must be provided as
“the examination of persons arriving in or leaving the United Kingdom…the examination of goods…imported to or exported from the United Kingdom, or…entered for exportation or brought to any place in the United Kingdom for exportation…the patrol of ports, and the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom…the collection and dissemination of intelligence for the purposes of the services…the direction and control of”
those engaged in providing those services; and such passport services as may be necessary for national security reasons.
Once the employer has decided to engage the new provisions, the Act enables them to issue work notices to trade unions during strike action. A work notice is a notice given in writing that levels of service as set out in the minimum service regulations are to apply.
Robert Jenrick
If I may finish the next paragraph, I will certainly come back to the hon. Member.
The trade union must then take reasonable steps to ensure that its members do not take strike action. It is important to note that the Act forbids an employer, when setting a work notice, from having regard to whether an employee is a member of trade union, has taken part in trade union activities or has used its services in the past. If a union fails to take reasonable steps, it may lose its legal protection from damages, claims and injunctions. The Department for Business and Trade will bring forward separate statutory guidance on “reasonable steps”.
Grahame Morris
The Minister said that this is a significant piece of legislation intended not to outlaw strikes, but to ensure minimum service levels. Quite a number of people disagree with the Government’s intent and whether the legislation is the appropriate vehicle to achieve that, but I am asking for a point of clarification on the draft regulations. Beforehand, I was looking through the impact assessment and our obligations as a country under international law. Concerns have been expressed by the trade unions—I should add that I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group, so I declare an interest—to suggest that this legislation is in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights; article 3 of the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise convention No 87 of the International Labour Organisation; article 8 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; and paragraph 4 of article 6 of the European social charter, which came into force in the year of my birth, 1961. I am interested in the Minister’s view of whether we are in breach of international law.
Robert Jenrick
We would not introduce the draft regulations if we believed that we were in contravention of our legal or international obligations. We do not believe that to be the case. It is worth stating that restrictions on the right to strike are common across Europe and signatory countries to the European convention on human rights. Minimum service levels exist in a range of countries in the EU and globally—
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Robert Jenrick
If I can finish the point, I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady.
Minimum service levels are a legitimate mechanism to implement necessary restrictions to balance the ability to strike with the needs of the general public. I could give examples of countries that have taken similar steps in recent years such as Portugal, France, Spain and others.
The second point to make in answer to the hon. Member for Easington is that nothing in the draft regulations will prohibit the ability of those working in border security to go on strike. The regulations will limit it, and ensure that a minimum level of service can be conducted. There is no general prohibition on the right to strike; we have said, however, that it is absolutely in the interests of the general public—for the free flow of goods and services through a port—and of national security that at all times we maintain a minimum level of service.
As the Minister responsible for border security during recent strike action, I thought it was extremely important to the country that we kept each and every one of our ports open and that we did not compromise national security. That is why I worked closely with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that military personnel were available at our ports. They did a fantastic job of achieving that, but it is not a sensible, long-term solution to ask members of our armed forces to step in on such occasions to protect our border security. It is right to put a sustainable solution in place.
Joanna Cherry
To take the Minister back to the legal point made by the hon. Member for Easington, he will recall that the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a report on the Act under which the draft regulations are being made. In an analysis of the law, we in the Committee pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights—in a case, somewhat ironically, against Russia—was clear that article 11 protects the right to strike. The Minister is perfectly right to say that other countries have minimum service-level laws, but they have different legal arrangements from us, with many providing a constitutional right to strike. The real question for the Government should not be whether other countries have minimum service-level regulations, but whether the United Kingdom Government are meeting their human rights requirements under article 11 of the ECHR.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. and learned Lady knows that article 11 is a qualified right. We strongly believe that, although there must be a right to strike, it must be balanced—qualified—by the need to protect the general public and ensure national security, and that is the crux of the argument. It is also worth saying that we will introduce compensatory measures, in the form of non-binding conciliation, to compensate the personnel who will be affected for interfering with that qualified right. Taken together, we believe that all of that satisfies our legal obligations.
The regulations stipulate that border security services can be provided only by those who already provide border security services or the relevant passport services required in the interests of national security, which means we will no longer need to rely on outside resource to provide cover. As I have said in answer to interventions, in the past we have used civil servants working elsewhere and, above all, members of the armed forces. We acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of colleagues who provided that cover, but we also recognise that that is not a long-term solution.
Grahame Morris
Can I draw the Minister’s attention to his comments about the use of the armed forces? I fully understand what was done in the pre-Christmas period last year because of the enormous queues that built up at airports and ports, but I have been told anecdotally that, because members of the armed forces could not operate the technology—they did not have any choice about this, and they were instructed to do it—they were simply waving people through. Anybody could have come in—people smugglers or anyone. If that is the last resort, surely the best solution is to negotiate with the trade unions to ensure that we have the right number of trained staff at our ports and airports and that an efficient service is operating for passengers and in the interests of national security.
Robert Jenrick
First, I strongly refute what the hon. Gentleman has just described, which does a disservice to those members of the armed forces who served throughout the year and particularly over Christmas. I, for one, met members of the armed forces last Christmas Eve and saw the work they were doing; they gave up their Christmas to serve the general public, and I do not want to see that happen again in future.
However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is valid in so far as it is obviously preferable to have properly trained individuals doing this task, which is precisely why we need these minimum service levels. It is not just about operating the primary control points at our airports, but about ensuring that we have proper counter-terrorism responses; that all the goods that enter and exit our country are properly checked, so that we have counter-narcotics operations in place; and that we have the resources in place in the short straits, so that if there are issues with small boat arrivals, lives can be saved and individuals can be met appropriately upon arrival in the UK. This could not be a more important subject, which is why we need the proper processes in place, and it is only by maintaining a minimum service level among permanent personnel that we can achieve that on behalf of the public.
To conclude, the public rightly expect us to ensure there is a fair balance between maintaining a secure border and the ability of workers to strike. These new border security minimum service levels will ensure that we have that balance between delivering the best possible service to the travelling public, maintaining a secure border and the ability of workers to strike, as is already the case in a range of countries in Europe and beyond. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott.
The ink is barely dry on the primary legislation under which these regulations are being made, yet the Government are already telling us quite a different story from the one they set out in the arguments made during the passage of the Bill—now an Act—through Parliament. As Members will recall, one of the Bill’s primary stated purposes was to give Ministers the power to define, in secondary legislation such as this, the scope of the definition of the relevant services covered and the particular minimum service levels that will apply to the services in question.
On the first issue, we were led to believe during the Bill’s passage that the only services for which the Home Office is responsible that were likely to be covered by the legislation were those relating to border security—namely, roles carried out by Border Force employees. The regulations go much further than that. Their scope will also include some Passport Office employees, but we have no idea how many or which roles, because the Government are not saying. The impact assessment tells us only that what is likely to be a small number of employees of HM Passport Office will be covered. This apparently last-minute addition to the draft regulations is so poorly defined that it is impossible to scrutinise, and the Opposition will never accept that.
In the absence of the key data from the impact assessment, perhaps the Minister could tell us now exactly—or even approximately—how many HMPO staff are likely to be required to meet the service levels the Government intend to impose, and exactly which roles in HMPO are likely to be included. If he cannot answer those questions, would he accept that bringing that agency into the scope of the new minimum service levels today is at best premature and at worst impossible to justify.
These questions matter because the consultation process that the Act requires, as part of the process of setting new minimum service levels, made no mention of any prospect that HMPO staff would be included. In a foreword to the consultation document, published over the summer, the previous Home Secretary suggested that other services under her remit could potentially be included alongside Border Force within the scope of the new rules. She asked for views from the stakeholders consulted as to whether any additional services should be included and if so, which ones. According to the Home Office, the majority of the responses it received said that only Border Force staff should be subject to minimum service levels among the Department’s employees. There were no suggestions from any stakeholders that Passport Office staff should be included.
The first and most obvious question is when the decision was made. Beyond that, can the Minister explain the rationale for HMPO to be brought into scope, and can he explain why his Department failed at any stage to consult the trade unions and employees who stand to be significantly affected by the regulations?
More broadly, some of the most obvious questions and concerns are conspicuous by their absence from the Government’s impact assessment. In other words, it seems that the Home Office is simply ignoring the questions that it does not wish to answer. For instance, have the Government made any assessment of how the introduction of the proposed minimum service levels might affect the ability of both Border Force and HMPO to recruit and retain the qualified and experienced staff that they need? If so, information on any such assessment is not included in the impact assessment. Why is that?
I am sure the Minister is aware of statements that several trade unions have made to the effect that they may adopt a strategy of deliberate non-co-operation or non-compliance with the proposed changes. With those unions responding with understandable anger to the changes under discussion, does the Minister accept that the Government’s heavy-handed approach to setting the minimum service levels we are discussing—and, particularly, his Department’s wilful refusal to carry out the most cursory of consultation processes with its own employees—risk seriously undermining his ability to bring union members to the table for negotiations in good faith on any potential disputes in the future? In so doing, have not the Government made even more likely the kind of industrial unrest that the legislation is supposed to be aimed at preventing? In light of our profound concerns about the regulations, I confirm that Labour will seek a Division this evening and will vote against them.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.
The SNP will likewise oppose the regulations. We are very concerned about their impact on people’s fundamental right to withdraw their labour. Strikes, by their very nature, are supposed to be disruptive. If the Government are saying that Border Force should be no less effective than if a strike were not taking place, they would undermine the very point of a strike. The very point is that people should know that staff have withdrawn their labour, because they are concerned about their terms and conditions or the way their employer—in this case, the Government—are treating them.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right that strikes are designed to be disruptive—that is their purpose—but they are not designed to be dangerous to the public. Strikes by Border Force are dangerous to the UK public, and that is the reason behind the legislation.
Alison Thewliss
The point the hon. Gentleman makes would be more correct if the Government were not determined to keep ports and airports open during strike action. That is a choice they have made. They want ports and airports to stay open, therefore they want a minimum service level. If the Government had said, “If you withdraw your labour, we will only be able to open the airports to an extent”, people would notice that. We notice when French air traffic controllers go on strike because it has that effect. It causes disruption and people realise there is an issue. If we have a service that is essentially no different when a strike takes place, the very nature of strike action is undermined.
The TUC has described the regulations as
“a draconian piece of legislation that attacks individuals’ fundamental rights while doing nothing to improve industrial ‘relations’”.
I remind the Minister that strikes have been more common under this Government because industrial relations have not been in a great place. That is why they are cracking down on people who wish to withdraw their labour and go on strike. It is a punishment for those people for having the temerity to exercise their fundamental rights.
I would also be very interested to know how the regulations will affect the Passport Office. I have a Passport Office in my constituency. I am not clear from the regulations how many people who work in the Passport Office in Glasgow will be affected because they are regarded as “mission critical” for national security. That is not defined in the regulations. The Government could say that everyone who works in the Passport Office is subject to the legislation, or perhaps it would be just a few people working on very sensitive passports. They have not defined that at all, and that is worrying for those who work in the Passport Office, because they do not know what their rights will be.
The issue is not just about security, as the hon. Member for Dartford suggests. The Government have talked about the free flow of goods. That is not national security: the free flow of goods is about commerce. Which is it? The Minister is disingenuous if he says it is only about national security.
On the consultation, I was surprised that we have not had a list of respondents. The consultation was open for just over a month only, from 11 August to 21 September, with 69 respondents, including employees of Border Force, industry partners and members of the public. I would be interested to know the exact mix. A further nine written responses were received from organisations such as trade unions, port operators and airlines. Again, it would be interesting to hear more about those responses. Is there a reason why those were not published ahead of the proceedings today? It would be interesting to learn about the balance of the responses. Were they from people saying they wanted their right to strike, or from people saying that nobody should ever be allowed to strike? We cannot tell from what has been provided to us.
The impact assessment contains a list of risks associated with the policy. It will have a disproportionate impact on some smaller ports and airports—mostly found in Scotland. Page 29 states:
“As Border Force staff numbers based at some smaller ports and airports are very low, Option 2”—
the Government’s preferred option—
“could mean that staff based at these locations are more likely to receive work notices, thus they are less likely to be able to undertake strike action, when compared with other staff.”
That seems to me to be discrimination: some people are not able to exercise their rights because they are seen as more critical in their roles than somebody at a much larger facility, perhaps. Take a small airport in Scotland compared with Heathrow. That is a huge difference in the number of people able to effectively exercise their right to strike.
The impact assessment goes on to say:
“Similarly, the requirement to maintain particular Border Force security functions during strike action could mean that officers trained in critical functions are less likely to be able to undertake strike action than those who have not taken the training. This IA has not assessed the impact…on staff willingness to be located at smaller Border Force outposts or to undergo the training necessary to carry out critical border security functions.”
Again, this becomes an issue of recruitment and retention in those specialist roles and those smaller ports right across these islands. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that might have on recruitment and retention in these roles and those locations? If there are difficulties in recruiting at those locations, that is surely much more important to national security than the sledgehammer to crack a nut that the Government are bringing forward this evening.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West referenced reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government like to bandy about that other European countries do similar things, but they are not comparing like with like. What is being removed and undermined in this legislation is the right to strike, which is protected in some countries under their legislation. We are starting from a very different point and on a very different basis. This country does not have a formalised constitution. I argue very much that in a country that wishes to be independent and to have a formalised constitution these rights should be enshrined and protected and that the right to strike should not be undermined by a Government without a mandate to do so.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some points about this important legislation. As I mentioned earlier, I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group—and virtually every other trade union group, as a matter of fact.
I want to place on the record the concerns of PCS and the broader trade union movement about the implications of this legislation, which threatens to strip thousands of Border Force workers—and, we now learn, an as yet undetermined number of Passport Office workers—of their fundamental right to strike. That right should be protected not only by our own domestic laws but by international agreements. I raised that point earlier with the Minister, and it has been reinforced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central.
The work undertaken by Border Force and the Passport Office is undeniably crucial, but a substantial body of opinion in the trade unions and beyond believes that this legislation is contrary to international law. It is both dangerous and reckless. We find ourselves at a crossroads. By introducing such a measure, our Government seem to be turning a blind eye to our international commitments on the right to strike.
Fundamentally, it is imperative to acknowledge that the right to strike is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the International Labour Organization’s convention 87, and article 6, clause 4 of the European social charter. By pushing ahead with the legislation, the Government are unfortunately disregarding those vital international agreements.
I want to take issue with the Minister’s comments about what was happening in Europe and their legislation to restrict strikes. I happen to know from personal experience that French rail workers are part of an agreement; they have a different system of sectoral agreements. They staged a strike that had a paralysing effect on Eurostar services at the weekend, despite the legislation in place. The solution, I suggest, is not draconian legislation but negotiation and discussion to find an amicable solution.
We should not forget that the UK already has some of the strictest anti-trade-union laws in Europe. With the introduction of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014—I believe that you served on the Bill Committee, Ms Elliott—the Trade Union Act 2016, and regulations permitting the recruitment of agency workers during strikes, the Government have already placed significant restrictions on workers’ rights and have significant powers in their toolbox. This year, not surprisingly, we have witnessed widespread industrial action because of the cost of living crisis—not because people have been staring at a full moon. Ordinary working people are really struggling to make ends meet and to pay increased fuel and electricity bills. The price of butter and basic commodities, as well as rents, have increased, which has prompted workers across the economy, in both the public and private sectors, to go on strike.
The regulations, however, appear to be a crude attempt to undermine the effectiveness of trade unions and limit the ability of Border Force and Passport Office workers to take any effective industrial action. They could even lead to the absurd position of trade unions and their officials having to tell members who voted to withdraw their labour that they must come in on strike days.
Make no mistake: this is an authoritarian crackdown on human rights completely alien to progressive European rights and the notion of freedom of expression. If the regulations are really about service to the public they should address some of the more fundamental issues such as understaffing on non-strike days. The undeniable truth is that workers in both Border Force and the Passport Office play a vital role in the functioning of the United Kingdom and indeed, as Government Members have pointed out, in relation to national security. Rather than restricting their rights, the Government should consider proper remuneration as a means to recognise and appreciate their contributions.
The draft statutory instrument proposed by the Government, indicating that border services must remain as effective on strike days as on non-strike days, is not only restrictive but raises a legal question about the proportionality of such a measure. The impact assessment on border security minimum service levels warns that some people’s right to strike will ultimately be affected. Border Force staff numbers based at smaller ports and airports, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central indicated, especially in Scotland, are very low, so staff based at these locations could be more likely to receive work notices and less likely to be able to undertake strike action compared with other staff.
There is an impact on those who have caring responsibilities and those who have disabled relatives. There are also issues of religion. Those are protected characteristics that a good employer would recognise, even on non-strike days, and seek to accommodate in staff rotas. The Government have estimated that 70% to 75% of staff at Border Force will be required to work on a strike day, which is three out of four workers. The Minister must explain why that level of minimum service is proportionate and why it does not amount to a complete ban on the right to strike.
The regulations on border security present the most restrictive minimum service levels to date, even when compared with other sectors mentioned by the Minister. This is not just an attack on the rights of workers but a departure from the progressive principles of European rights and freedom of expression. The Government and the Minister must provide a clear and proportionate justification for the measures, keeping in mind their obligations under international law and the rights of our citizens.
Joanna Cherry
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott, and a particular pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Easington.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the regulations in my capacity as acting Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Back in March, we published a legislative scrutiny report on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, as it then was, and raised a number of serious concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law, including in particular the right to freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which of course is part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, although article 11 does not expressly refer to the right to strike, the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted it as covering the taking of strike action, for example in the case of Ognevenko v. Russia.
During the passage of the Bill, there were many references to arrangements in other European countries, as there have been today. To my knowledge, no European countries apart from Russia and Hungary impose minimum service levels from the top down, without negotiation or arbitration, in this way. I suggest that that is not company that the United Kingdom Government should wish to keep.
The draft regulations continue to cause the Joint Committee concern. We need to remember that, as we discuss in our report, the consequences of employees failing to work when required to do so by employers that impose minimum service levels through work notices, and of trade unions not taking reasonable steps to ensure that members comply with the work notices, include a loss of automatic protection against dismissal for participating in a strike. That is a major consequence for any individual worker, particularly in today’s climate, which was so ably described by the Member for Easington. In our original report, we expressed concern that such severe consequences may amount to a disproportionate interference with article 11. Having considered the draft regulations, we remain of the view that they could impose a disproportionate interference with article 11.
At the end of last week, in my capacity as acting Chair, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to raise concerns about the border security regulations and the other regulations being debated today. In particular, the border security regulations permit an employer to serve a work notice that requires border services to be “no less effective” on a strike day
“than they would be if the strike were not taking place”.
That kind of defeats the purpose of holding a strike, and therefore arguably completely undermines the right to strike. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recognises the crucial service carried out by border service staff and applauds them for it. But the proposed minimum service level raises a question not only about the ability of many individual employees to participate in a strike, but about the extent to which the strike could serve any purpose at all. As we have heard, particular concerns arise in respect of small ports and airports, where “no less effective” services could result in staff teams being effectively prevented from striking at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, that would have a particular impact in Scotland, which has a number small ports and smaller airports.
The Trades Union Congress is rightly very concerned about the implications of both the Act and the draft regulations. I met with them a couple of weeks ago, after the regulations were laid, to discuss its particular concerns about the border security regulations and the other regulations. The TUC made the point that, in contrast to the other regulations, the border security regulations are very short, but they are very strict. They will mean that probably only one in four workers in this field will be able to go on strike and that services must remain as they are on non-strike days.
The regulations set out that border security services should be provided at a level that means they are no less effective. That will include the examination of people and goods, the patrolling of ports and airports, and the collection and dissemination of intelligence. It goes beyond security issues.
Grahame Morris
I am not a barrister or a lawyer, but I do think this is a really important point. Is there an analogy between reasonableness and proportionality? Would it be reasonable to have an independent arbiter of what constitutes a reasonable proportion of the workforce, rather than a Minister?
Joanna Cherry
That is what happens in many other European countries. Of course, any interference with the article 11 rights has to be proportionate, and given the extent of these regulations, there is a very real argument as to whether the interference is proportionate. I believe that it is not.
I note—and the TUC drew to my attention—that the Government estimate that the regulations will mean staffing levels of around 70-75% of Border Force. Only one out of four people working for Border Force will be able to exercise their right to strike; that strikes me as rather disproportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, this is all because the Government say
“all ports and airports should remain open on a strike day.”
As I understand it from the TUC, the Government are committing that they will agree to engage in conciliation for national disputes in relation to border security. Where the relevant unions agree, that would be helpful, but it is not written into the regulations. I wonder why that is not written into them; will the Minister address that?
The impact assessment for the border security minimum service levels warns, not surprisingly, that some people’s rights to strike will be effected. It says:
“As Border Force staff numbers based at some smaller ports and airports are very low, Option 2”
—the one the Government opted for—
“could mean that staff based at these locations are more likely to receive work notices, thus they are less likely to be able to undertake strike action, when compared with other staff. Similarly, the requirement to maintain particular border security functions during strike action could mean that officers trained in critical functions are less likely to be able to undertake strike action than those who have not taken the training.”
The point the TUC made to me is that it is unacceptable that such a profound effect on a fundamental right—that of the right to strike—should not be subject to a more detailed analysis than it has been in the impact assessment.
I have already raised a couple of questions that I want the Minister to address, and I will add two more. The Minister said in response to my earlier intervention about the law that the Government are satisfied that border security workers, particularly those at small ports and airports, will be able to exercise their article 11 rights if these regulations are passed, and the minimum service levels contained in them are imposed. Having regard to the points I have made about the numbers of people who would be prevented from exercising their right to strike—it looks like 75%, and indeed 100% at small ports and airports—will the Minister explain—
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?
Joanna Cherry
I will just finish the point.
Will the Minister explain how he is satisfied that preventing 75% of workers across the force, and all workers in certain ports and airports, from striking is a proportionate interference with the right to strike?
Katherine Fletcher
I am listening carefully to the hon. and learned Lady’s exposition on the rights of the workers of Border Force. I am just wondering where she thinks the balance is with the right of the British public to be safe. We know that we have some problems with criminality in the UK. Perhaps, for example, a drug dealer realises Border Force is on strike, and he thinks, “Fantastic, I will go to that small port and put 20 kg of children-killing heroin through it.” How can we find the balance of everybody’s rights?
Joanna Cherry
It is not for me to say what the balance should be; that is for the law. For the time being—thank goodness—this country is a signatory to the European convention on human rights. For the time being—thank goodness—we still have the Human Rights Act. The jurisprudence of the Court is pretty clear. As I said, it is normally countries such as Russia and Hungary that are taken to the European Court of Human Rights, not this country. We actually have a pretty good record in the European Court of Human Rights—[Interruption.] Let me just expand on this point. That will not continue to be the case if we pass these regulations.
It is a question of proportionality. The right to strike is not absolute; it can be restricted in accordance with law, but it has to be a proportionate interference. My point—
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady is going on about the rights of the public. Yes, of course the public have rights. The public have the same rights as the workers—in fact, many members of the public are workers. There is not some sort of strange grouping called “trade union members” and “workers”, and then the “public”. Many members of the public in this country are still trade union members. Many of my constituents are trade union members. Many of the hon. Lady’s constituents will be trade union members. These rights are rights of members of the public.
I think the hon. Lady is talking about the rights of the service users. Yes, the law does balance the rights, but it has to be a proportionate interference. My point is that when some workers are being prevented from striking altogether, and when in other cases 75% of the workforce are being prevented from striking, that is not a proportionate interference. We will not see such interference in other European democracies unless we care to dignify countries like Russia and Hungary with the word democracy—I do not think many of us would. That is the company we will be keeping. This is draconian. To suggest otherwise is simply, factually incorrect.
Grahame Morris
The hon. and learned Lady is making an excellent point, and making it far better than I could. I would like to reinforce the point. Article 11 states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”
The right for trade unions to take industrial action is further enshrined in the International Labour Organisation’s convention 87 and article 6(4) of the European social charter. The legislation seems to disregard those legal obligations.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—[Interruption.]
Joanna Cherry
Thank you, Ms Elliott.
Article 11 goes on to say that there can be an interference with that right only in accordance with law in a way that is “proportionate”. The whole point that I am trying to make is that this is not a proportionate interference with the right to strike. I am not saying that there should not be minimum service levels, and there are minimum service levels across Europe. We already have minimum service levels imposed by sectoral agreements in various areas of public service across the United Kingdom. We should be trying to reach those minimum service levels by agreement, and where agreement cannot be reached between the unions and the employers, then there should be arbitration. That is the proportionate way in which to do it.
I would like to wind up. If anyone is interested in the balance of rights, we addressed it in some detail in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report published earlier this year. First, how is the Minister satisfied that the regulations are a proportionate interference with the right to strike, when in some cases they will prevent all workers from striking, and in some cases it will be 75%? Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the extent to which effective strike action is still possible in cases where services must be no less effective than if no strike were taking place? On what basis does the Government conclude that restricting strike action in this way amounts to a proportionate interference with article 11, both generally and specifically for those individuals identified in a work notice?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare the same interest as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, which is that I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group. Just so that everyone is absolutely clear and for the record, PCS is not affiliated with the Labour Party—there is no financial relationship to the Labour Party or any of us. We are in the group because we receive information from the union about what is happening on the ground, and it helps us to communicate in debates.
I have a particular interest in being a member of the PCS parliamentary group because Heathrow is in my constituency, and quite a sizeable number of the people employed by Border Force are my constituents. If Members present from all parties have the opportunity, it would be worth their sitting down and talking to some of those people. It is important that we recognise who we are dealing with here: trained professionals who understand that the role they play is important in protecting this country. They do so out of professional commitment and a deep sense of patriotism. In some instances, they put themselves at considerable risk, particularly in dealing with the drugs issues raised by Members on the Government side. They do not go on strike lightly. I find it ironic that emphasis is being put on the importance of the role that they play, yet when it comes to their wage negotiations that does not seem to be reflected in the offers they have had. That is why they have taken industrial action: because they could not find any other route to secure a wage settlement that in some way meets the challenges they face in the cost of living crisis.
My constituents live in an area where it is very difficult for most of them to afford housing, or even get on to the housing ladder, because of the increase in the valuation of properties. We must be honest and straight with people when we legislate. The reality is that three quarters of my constituents will not have the right to strike, if the level is 75%. That is the first thing. The other quarter will not have the right to have an effective strike, so in effect we are removing the right to strike from the bulk of them, if not all of them. Regulation 3(1) states that the level of service in relation to
“strikes as respects the border services is that, on each day of the strike, the border services are no less effective than they would be if the strike were not taking place”.
That undermines the whole effectiveness of industrial action and why people take it.
In addition, if Members look at the procedures set out in the SI and the draft guidance, they will see that so far there is no specific reference to the conciliation offered by the Minister. Not to bring forward this SI in particular alongside conciliation is almost an act of provocation, because it gives no succour to people who could argue, “At least we have something to fall back on to resolve our disputes.” That is not the case here. It places an onus on the trade unions themselves. The employer gives a week’s notice under the SI and can, up to the fourth day, change that notice and include different members of staff in it. The onus then falls on the trade union, not the employer, to contact them.
It is then up to the trade union to send out the letter—the draft letter is set out in the guidance for unions to use. Although it is only a guidance letter, we know from past experience that when there is interference with an organisation and the way in which it communicates with its members, it is often used in legal actions by others if people do not follow the exact wording. In addition, there is even guidance on how pickets are to be supervised. That goes well beyond what was discussed in the debate about the main legislation. The SI goes well beyond the main thrust of that debate and the legislation itself.
We need to get into the real world here. Imposing legislation like this undermines the industrial relations climate and worsens it significantly, particularly among this group of people, who feel they have done everything they possibly can. They have been forced into industrial action, they have a settlement, and now they just want to get on with their job. If this is enforced, it will undermine the morale of those staff. Do not think that people do not find other ways of taking action. There are real warnings from most of the consultations going on: if morale collapses and people get fed up, what do they do? They do not co-operate in all sorts of different, informal ways. Sickness levels will rise. People will find a way of protesting if they feel that they are being treated badly. That is the reality. It happens in every workforce if people think that the managers or employers are not treating them properly.
My big fear is that if the SI is implemented, when the first trade unionist who is identified and told that they must go into work says no, it will act as a spark to a tinderbox across the industrial relations scene in our country. That is not what we want, but the first time a trade unionist or trade union is fined, it will be seen as an act of provocation. I do not think that is the sort of society we want to construct. We need to try to get back to the process of negotiations, agreements and, accepting that there will be differences, finding a route to resolve them. Legislating people out of the right to take industrial action will result not only in inevitable legal challenges but, as we have seen historically, in wildcat action that is well beyond the control of any trade union. No union would seek to control its members in that way.
I say to the Government: be careful what you wish for. This is a hugely retrograde step and I think, knowing the workforce in the way I do, that it will undermine the service that the Government seek and that we all want the workforce to provide. It will impact on recruitment and the retention of existing staff, and on the overall service. I oppose this statutory instrument totally, and I also oppose the general thrust of the way the Government are developing industrial relations policy. I hope that wiser heads prevail in the Government. I hope they step back and postpone any form of implementation of the regulations, even if they go through, so that there are no provocative Government actions that impose on these professionals a duty or responsibility that makes matters worse rather than improves them.
Robert Jenrick
I will try to respond swiftly. I will first make a general point and will then come to some of the specific questions that were asked.
The general point is this. In some of the speeches we have just heard, although not all, there seemed to be a casual disregard for some of the issues we are dealing with. We are talking about how to maintain our national security and stop terrorists who, if allowed to enter our country, might pose a serious and credible risk to our fellow citizens. We are talking about how we ensure that, even on a strike day, we intercept sizeable quantities of drugs, weapons and contraband. We are talking about how we ensure safety at sea. We are talking about ensuring that migrants crossing in small boats do not drown and that when they arrive at Western Jet Foil and Manston, there are Border Force officers to do national security checks on them to protect the general public.
Even though it may not seem important to some, we are also talking about the queues at our airports, which all our constituents think are extremely important. Since I have been a Minister, few things have filled my mailbag as much as out-of-control queues at airports ruining people’s holidays and trips abroad, and making it difficult to do business travel.
What we are talking about today is not some incidental policy: it is absolutely critical to our country. As the Minister responsible for combating the strike action over the past year, I took the view, along with the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, that each and every one of those things matters immensely to our constituents.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
That is why we deployed members of the armed forces. We asked young men and women to give up their Christmas holidays, often on pay and conditions substantially less than those of the Border Force officers whose places they were filling, to keep this country safe. That is why this measure is so important. I will not compromise on that, and I think it raises questions of fitness to govern if Labour Members do not consider these things to be important to our constituents and our country.
There was an extraordinary suggestion that we should respond just by closing ports. In what world would it be good for the United Kingdom to declare that the Port of Dover or Felixstowe is closed, or that there will not be any security checks at a small Scottish port because they do not matter? Well, they do matter: they matter to business, to national security and to the protection of the general public. The Government believe it is absolutely critical that every port in this country, large or small, stays open every day of the year, and that is why we are taking this action.
I turn to some of the specific points that have been raised, starting with the question of smaller ports. We take this issue seriously, and staffing requirements will depend on the exact nature of the strike. We will assess this on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances, and we will take decisions to ensure that we are compliant with our legal obligations. To give an example of how we might do that, Border Force officers invariably move between ports on a regular basis. When we managed the recent strikes, we asked Border Force officers who were willing to come into work to deploy to ports where they would not ordinarily work, and in many cases they were willing to do so, so I am confident that that issue can be managed appropriately and in line with our legal obligations.
With respect to the question about introducing the regulations without having a voluntary arrangement for minimum service levels, we first sought the support and engagement of the unions, as one would expect, but they declined to engage with us. It was only when they declined that we decided to proceed with the policy. With respect to the question about the scope of the arrangements under the regulations, I go back to my earlier remark: those wanting to limit their scope need to say which things do not matter. Which of these things do they not want to be open on any given day? Is it that they do not want counter-terrorism activities to be happening? Do they want very large queues at our ports? Do they want goods no longer to be checked at the Port of Dover? That is what one has to think through, and we took the view that each and every one of those things matters, which is why we need to have the level of minimum service that we have set out in the regulations. However, I will caveat that by saying that the test is that the system should be no less effective. Not all border services are in scope—just those identified in the regulations—and we have not set out exactly which services would be operating on any given day, precisely because it would be extremely naive to signpost to terrorists, smugglers and criminals which activities would be stood down on any given day. We do not do that, we have not done it on recent strike days, and we do not intend to do it with the passage of the regulations.
With respect to the question about the Passport Office, we are applying the regulations only to those services that are integral to national security, and I hope that everyone across the House supports us in that regard. We estimate that that is no more than a dozen individuals, so with all due respect, I think the hon. Member for Easington is getting ahead of himself on that. The sorts of functions we are talking about include identifying stolen passports and forged documents, and I would not want to be the Minister for Immigration on a day on which we were not able to identify either of those things, because they are integral to the security of our borders.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I declare that I am an associate member of the PCS union and a member of the all-party parliamentary group. I am saddened by the Minister’s assertion that the Opposition do not care about security. Border Force and the unions have stressed over and over again that they do not take strike action without careful consideration and heavy hearts, but it has been necessary. Does he think threatening to bring in other people to do the work and criticising people for striking, when it is the very last resort, is a way of engaging with the unions in future?
Robert Jenrick
I suspect I have a higher regard for people working in Border Force than some of those who contributed to the debate. It is precisely because what it does is critical to our security that I want to ensure that a minimum service level is maintained on every day of the week. I think Border Force is akin to a uniformed service. I do not think it is a doing a basic service stamping passports and letting people through our airports. It is protecting the public, which is why we need to ensure that we maintain the service every day of the week. I do not think the regulations will impact on recruitment and retention. In fact, we are enlarging all the relevant organisations, including the Passport Office, Border Force and allied organisations such as Immigration Enforcement and the Small Boats Operational Command. In most, if not all, of those cases, the jobs are oversubscribed, because thousands of our fellow citizens want to take part in this important work on behalf of the general public. With that—
Robert Jenrick
I have already said that the Government have made a clear and unambiguous commitment to have non-binding conciliation services with regard to the regulations. That is the offer we have made to the unions, and we intend to follow it through. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The purpose of the regulations is to set minimum service levels that can apply to specified services during passenger rail strikes. These minimum service levels are designed to balance the public’s need to make important journeys and the impact of rail strikes on the economy on the one hand, with the ability of rail workers to take strike action on the other. It is my hope that strike action can be avoided, but the regulations will mean that when strikes take place, the rail industry can provide an improved and more consistent service, in a way that is proportionate and fair for all parties.
Let me give some background to the regulations. Strike action in the rail sector has occurred frequently in recent years, and has a significant impact on people’s ability to travel. Since 2019, there has not been a single day when there has not been either a strike on our railways, or mandates for strikes outstanding. The result has been many periods of disruptive strike action, in some cases resulting in the suspension of all rail services on affected routes. Between June 2022 and November 2023, there have been 42 days of widespread disruption caused by strikes. That can have considerable consequences for the passengers and communities affected. People often struggle, or are unable, to travel to work. Others have difficulty accessing vital services, such as education and healthcare. Businesses and the wider economy suffer. Enabling a minimum service to operate during rail strikes is a means of protecting against disproportionate impacts of strike action.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, passed on 20 July this year, establishes a clear framework for implementing minimum service levels. The Act amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to give the relevant Secretary of State the power to make regulations setting minimum service levels for specified services in six key sectors, including transport. In addition, the strikes Act sets out the framework through which minimum service levels can be deployed. It gives employers the ability to issue a work notice to a trade union if a strike is called on a service specified in the regulations. The work notice must set out the staff whose are reasonably necessary if the minimum service level set out in the regulations is to be met, and the work that those staff must undertake. The trade union must take reasonable steps to ensure that the trade union members identified in a work notice comply with its requirements.
The regulations for passenger rail specify three categories of service that minimum service levels apply to, and the associated minimum service levels. Category A is train operation services. Category B is infrastructures services, and category C is light rail services.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Minister says that the trade union should ensure that its members comply with the work notice. What mechanism should it use to ensure that?
Huw Merriman
I will come back later in the debate to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the action that we would require trade unions to take—or rather, not take—to ensure that the standard is met.
Let me explain categories A to C. Category A covers train operation services provided by passenger train operators under agreements with the UK Government, including services provided as operator of last resort, and by devolved Governments, and local transport authorities and executives. It therefore excludes services provided by open-access and freight operators; heritage and tourist services; and international train services that start or finish outside Great Britain. The minimum service level for train operation services is the provision of those services necessary to deliver the equivalent of 40% of the operator’s timetabled services, as shown in the most recently published National Rail timetable, during the strike.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My constituency of Chelmsford has a particularly busy train station. Indeed, I am told it is the busiest two-platform train station anywhere in the country outside London. It is used by many people to commute to work, and by many young people to get in and out of schools and colleges. I am absolutely delighted to support the regulations, because train strikes have made those people’s life an absolute nightmare. Does that 40% figure mean 40% across the whole day, or will the 40% rate apply in the rush hours, so that my young people can still get to school or college?
Huw Merriman
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. The 40% of train operation services is 40% of services across the train operator’s timetable as a whole. It applies for as long as that timetable runs. I will go on to talk about category B, because that is hours-specific guidance.
Category B covers services listed in the regulations that are provided by infrastructure managers. During strikes by railway infrastructure workers, the minimum service level is the provision of services between the hours of 06:00 and 22:00 on the priority routes that are listed in the regulations, and on certain enabling infrastructure within a 5-mile radius of the priority routes, including connections to depots, sidings, and rail freight terminals.
Category C covers train operation and infrastructure services provided on the 11 light rail systems specified in the regulations. The minimum service level is the provision of services necessary to deliver, during the strike, the equivalent of 40% of timetabled services as shown in the most recently published timetable issued by the operator of the light rail service.
We have designed the minimum service levels to address appropriately the type of strike action that we typically see, and to ensure that the levels are operationally viable for employers. The minimum service levels are intended to achieve a suitable and proportionate balance between delivering benefits to passengers and the wider economy, and workers’ ability to strike. Our work has been informed by extensive consultation and engagement, including a public consultation between 20 February and 15 May of this year, and consultation with train and infrastructure operators, passenger representative groups, unions, and a wide range of other stakeholders.
Once in force, the regulations will apply to any future strikes, even if the mandates for those strikes predate the primary legislation, which received Royal Assent on 20 July this year. That will allow employers in the rail industry to use these regulations as soon as they come into force, should they choose to do so. The Government have identified passenger rail as a priority for minimum service levels. These regulations deliver on that commitment, and deliver on the 2019 manifesto.
Huw Merriman
I am not giving way. I said I would come back before the end of the debate on the points the right hon. Gentleman made.
The regulations mean that train operators will be able to provide the equivalent of 40% of their timetable during strikes, whereas on some recent strike days, a number of companies have been unable to run any effective service at all. During full-day infrastructure strikes, priority routes can be open for 16 hours, instead of the 11 hours provided for under the industry’s current contingency arrangements, with some additions to the routes normally provided. Importantly, this will enable industry to encompass both the morning and evening peaks, so passengers will have more certainty around getting to work and returning home in the evening. These regulations are a positive step towards addressing the impact of rail strikes in a proportionate way. I commend them to the Committee.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and content of the legislation. Labour does not support the passing of this instrument. The Government’s failed approach to industrial relations has led to the worst strikes in decades, and this legislation will do nothing to solve those issues. Last December, the Transport Secretary admitted that minimum services for rail is “not a solution”, and that the way to get a better service was to “resolve the disputes”. The Government’s own impact assessments on this legislation in the transport sector admitted that the plans could increase strikes, disruption short of a strike, and chronic staff shortages. Even the architect of the law, the former No. 10 adviser Andrew Gilligan, said the plans may
“promote more industrial action than they mitigate”,
and will not ensure smooth services. The chief executive of the Rail Safety and Standards Board said the proposals
“won’t make the slightest bit of difference”.
Minimum service levels do not stop strikes in Europe. Countries such as Spain and France lose far more days to strikes than the UK. In Spain, minimum service levels have led to messy legal battles and delayed solutions to industrial action. It often takes the courts around a year to solve disputes on MSLs.
The impact assessment for the statutory instrument was first submitted on 12 October for scrutiny by the regulatory policy committee, which found that it was not sufficiently robust and identified areas where improvements should be made. The RPC confirmed that the points that it raised would generate a red-rated opinion, if not addressed adequately. The legislation is so rushed that the RPC has not been able to provide an assessment of the updated impact assessment, which was submitted only earlier this month. Given that the legislation has safety-critical implications and involves complex arrangements, it is absolutely staggering that the Minister is refusing to produce the impact assessment before Parliament has the chance to vote on the regulations. This is dreadful policymaking practice, with potentially serious consequences.
John Spellar
In my earlier exchange with the Minister, was there not a clue to the reason why he cannot provide the impact assessment? It is because he does not have a clue what the impact will be. Fundamentally, he does not know how the regulations will work. That may not be his fault; it may be the fault of whoever drafted the regulations. I am not saying that such measures could not work, but there is nothing I can see in the documentation that indicates how the regulations could work effectively.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my right hon. Friend for that scrutiny, and I agree with him. This is the challenge we face with this Government: they are not willing to listen or take on board our concerns about the legislation. Where was the response to the point my right hon. Friend raised earlier? That raises the question of why the Government are not willing to wait for the impact assessment to be reviewed before pushing this legislation through; they realise how poorly thought-through these plans are.
Over the past 13 years, the Conservatives have consistently attacked rights at work, including through the Trade Union Act 2016, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022. Labour will repeal all of them to give trade unions the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. A Labour Government would ensure that trade unions could get on with their job of standing up for working people, and ensuring that industrial relations are based on good-faith negotiation and bargaining. That will end the Conservatives’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, ushering in a new partnership and co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government, and putting us in line with high-growth economies that benefit from more co-operation and less disruption.
We need clarity from the Minister on a number of issues. First, when will he receive the regulatory policy committee’s review of the impact assessment? Why has this Committee been scheduled for today, ahead of this review being published? The rushed nature of the legislation has created significant legal grey areas, so workers and employers will be uncertain about where they stand. As the TUC has stated, that is particularly troubling because the consequences for unions and workers of falling foul of the legislation could be enormous, with unions potentially facing damages of up to £1 million.
We need clarity on how many people will effectively be denied the right to strike. The headline is that 40% of rail services will run during strikes, but delivering that is likely to require a lot more than 40% of staff, once consideration has been given to issues such as cover staff. Will the Minister confirm how many staff will be denied the right to strike by the legislation? How will the issue be managed across the network? For example, what happens if there is a strike by multiple operators and Network Rail on the same day? How many signallers would be needed to ensure that 40% of those operators’ services could run? All sorts of safety concerns could be created. In theory, could all signallers be given work notices on a strike day? What would happen if a driver named on a work notice refused to operate a service because of safety fears, such as severe overcrowding? Would such a refusal be treated as a breach of the work notice?
Finally, will the regulations extend to the freight sector via the back door, given that freight services and workers are often used by passenger operators and Network Rail to ensure a good service on the network—for example, on recovery services?
This statutory instrument is being rushed through without proper scrutiny and raises far more questions than answers. Labour has been consistently clear that this shameful assault on the rights of working people will do nothing to stop industrial action on the network, and we oppose it. Indeed, as the Government themselves admit, it could make industrial action worse. This unworkable legislation could have very serious safety implications, which the Government have steadfastly refused to address.
The fact remains that only the Secretary of State getting around the table will solve the ongoing rail dispute—something he has refused to do this whole year. Rather than launch yet another attach on workers’ rights, is it not time that the Conservatives showed some responsibility, went back to negotiations and sorted out this dispute?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s full response to the questions from the Labour Front Bencher. Also, given the intervention from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), will the Minister say whether Chelmsford is covered by the priority routes in the regulations? I will stand corrected if it is, but I have looked through the routes a couple of times and cannot see Chelmsford. I do know whether that will help the right hon. Lady’s constituents.
A breakdown in industrial relations in a train operating company can, as elsewhere, result in disruption for the long term, as workers who volunteer for rest-day working decide to take their rest days, overtime is knocked back, and good will disappears. No doubt some service managers think that they will be able to use the regulations to bully staff back to work, but the fact is that they would cause longer-term damage to the rail network and the industry. The Government are facilitating that damage through their legislation and the regulations that are before us.
Do the Government seriously think that when the industrial action is over, the workforce will be keen to go back to working under the managers and decision makers who threatened them with criminal charges if they did not comply? It does not take an expert in industrial relations to work out that the legislation could only harm relations between management and staff, and in turn harm our rail network and the wider economy. Perhaps that is why the industry has repeatedly expressed its reluctance to get involved. While the primary legislation was passing through Parliament, the Rail Freight Group told the Transport Committee—after the Minister’s time as its Chair—that
“our members who are private companies wish to manage their relationships with the trade unions directly rather than with any legislative overlay.”
Transport Focus said:
“There is no substitute for good, modern industrial relations in any industry where changes and terms and conditions are negotiated, and agreement is reached. You want to have workers who want to come to work.”
The Government have repeated their proportion of 40% in order to give the impression that the majority of striking workers will still be able to avail themselves of their human rights, but given the nature of work on the railway network—signalling, station management and maintenance, dispatch, ticket gates, public safety and so on—the reality is that far more than 40% of staff will be ordered to work.
The Scottish Government continue to regard the legislation as unnecessary, unwanted and ineffective. It seeks to undermine legitimate trade union activity and goes against the principles of fair work, the interests of the Scottish public, workers and employers, and the delivery of public services in Scotland. The UK’s record on employment rights, and indeed basic human rights, is exemplified by the International Trade Union Confederation’s annual report on workers’ rights, which this year ranked the UK alongside such champions of workers as El Salvador, Angola and Qatar.
Further to the points about the efficacy of minimum service levels in other countries, let us say hypothetically that the Scottish Government supported this idea. A look at the priority routes I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford proves that Mick Lynch was right when he said the Government and the Department for Transport do not care about Scotland or Wales. The most northerly station covered by these priority routes is Cowdenbeath, which is barely one third of the way up mainland Scotland and 170 miles as the crow flies, or 270 miles and three train journeys, to the most northerly station, in Thurso. Therefore, even if we supported these priority routes, they would mean nothing to vast swathes of Scottish passengers.
To be crystal clear, the Scottish Government are not interested in using any of the powers the UK Government have grabbed for themselves. The Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy has made it clear that the Scottish Government will not co-operate in establishing any minimum service orders in Scotland over which Holyrood has competence, which is nearly all of them.
I am grateful to the Government for highlighting through their regulations the continued illogical control of Network Rail in Scotland by Westminster and the DFT. The UK Government cannot impose minimum service levels on ScotRail or the Caledonian Sleeper, because both are under the auspices of the Scottish Government—better still, they are publicly owned by the Scottish Government. However, because Network Rail remains undevolved, these regulations can be applied to track and infrastructure. So we have laws being applied to force employees to work, and trade unions to take part in that coercion under pain of criminal penalty, in order that train tracks, signalling and stations remain open and semi-functional to serve trains that will not run, because the Government who run them actually respect individual human rights. What complete nonsense! It is another nail in the coffin of the idea that Network Rail in Scotland should remain outwith the control of Scotland. Given that no services will run on all the routes I have just mentioned, will the Minister confirm that a higher proportion of Network Rail staff in Scotland will be able lawfully to withdraw their labour compared with their counterparts south of the border?
The truth is that the overwhelming consensus in Scotland—among three quarters of Members of the Scottish Parliament, over 85% of MPs, and trade unions serving Scotland—is that these work regulations are wrong, like much of the UK Government’s attitude to workers’ rights. Indeed, polling shows that the strongest opposition in this island to minimum service levels comes from people in Scotland. So when Ministers say that this legislation is what the people want, I am not so sure that that is true south of the border, but it certainly is not true in Scotland. That is just one reason why we will vote against the regulations this evening.
John McDonnell
I am not sure I want that on the record.
The Minister has responsibility for transport, but I do not think that any Transport Minister, including him—when we have gone through lengthy industrial relations problems on rail and many of them are being concluded, and when we might be entering a period of relative industrial peace on rail—wants to carry out such a hugely provocative act, which could pour petrol on the fire and start the problems up all over again, but these proposals could do that, because people will be angry.
As has been mentioned, the reality is that a number of staff, because of the safety-critical role they play, will lose their basic right to strike, against all the international conventions and international agreements we have signed up to and against the human rights legislation we have endorsed over the years. They will lose their right to strike.
In addition, if we take the evidence that has been put before us all the way through this debate from those in the industry, the train operating companies, when they have been consulted, have clearly said that this legislation and its implementation in this sector will increase disruption. Even the Government’s own original impact assessment said that, and we can see why. It is because the Government are interfering in the basic right of trade unions to represent their members—the very reason they were formed.
But it goes further than that. This statutory instrument is retrospective. We in this House understandably have concerns about retrospective legislation, as most people feel it is unreasonable and irrational, but this legislation, in particular, will apply to current disputes, where ballots have taken place quite lawfully and the dispute is going ahead.
In addition, the onus placed on individual trade unions will almost undermine the operation of the Government’s proposal. Let us take just one example. The employer has to give seven days’ notice—fair enough. The trade union is then required to identify which workers are in the notice and whether they are its members, and it then communicates with them directly. But the employer can come back on the fourth day and vary the order, either to delete or include other workers. To be frank, I think the administrative burden on trade unions is such that it will place the whole process in jeopardy.
There is another element, which I had not noticed before, because it was not debated when the original legislation was brought forward: the introduction of Government control of picket lines in a way that was never rehearsed in the original debate. I do not know how many Government Members have been on picket lines—but we are expecting trade unionists to supervise the picket line and behaviour in relation to communication with members of staff, and to have before them and check through the full list of all those who have been identified as being required to work, when it comes to whether the picket line members can just talk to them.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is even more perverse than, isn’t it? Some of the people identified in the varied work notice could be trade union representatives—those we would expect to be on the picket line maintaining good order. It is a real concern that trade unionists are going to be identified, picked on and bullied through this legislation.
John McDonnell
It is a recipe for further conflict—I think for disaster—at every stage.
The Conservative party prides itself on the defence of civil liberties: not interfering in civil society organisations because that is an intrusive step by the state. But under this statutory instrument and the draft guidance, the Conservatives are actually telling trade unions how to write the letter to their members encouraging them to comply with the legislation and go to work. Now, unions will be almost forced to comply with that draft guidance, because if they use other language, as we have seen in the past, lawyers acting on behalf of the train operating companies or others will pick through it in precise detail. I have never seen this before: the state actually dictating the language to be used in a civil society organisation’s communication with its members. This has gone a step beyond anything we have seen in the past.
Let me explain the reality of industrial relations: if the Government try to prevent people from taking strike action, they will find other mechanisms. We have seen wildcat strikes in the past in our country; we have tried not to encourage them, because we want industrial relations to be orderly, but if people are told to go to work, instead they will go sick, they will work to rule, and they will not be as committed in the job as they should be. It is obvious that that will happen when the industrial relations climate is soured like that.
We have been trying to get absolute clarity from Ministers on whether the use of this legislation by companies is discretionary, and we have been given assurances that it is. But the reality in the rail industry at the moment is that it is not the companies that are engaged in the industrial relations conversations; it is the Government that are determining the industrial relations decisions, so it will be up to the Government, not the TOCs, to decide whether to employ this strategy to defeat the unions or to try to constrain the unions to reform in some way.
The Government should be careful what they wish for. To introduce this legislation and put petrol on the fire at this stage, just when there is the potential for negotiated settlements, a period of industrial relations co-operation and the development of a new spirit in the industry, could be completely counterproductive. The Government should think before they act in this way. I would rather the Minister wait for the impact assessment, which we have been promised but which has not been delivered, so that we can properly consider all the implications of this statutory instrument, and just hold back. What is the rush, particularly when negotiations to resolve some of the final disputes are taking place, and when the Government have withdrawn their plan for the closure of ticket offices, which was one of the major contentious elements of the dispute? This measure is precipitous and provocative, and it is dangerous for the future of our industry in the coming period. I urge the Government to think again.
John Spellar
I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington—people do not hear that very often.
I may be being a bit unfair to the Minister but, as colleagues have indicated, there is a question as to whether his heart is in this, or whether it has been dreamed up by political pointy-heads in No. 10 who think they can run the next election on “Who runs the country?” I merely caution the Minister that the historical precedents for that are not encouraging. That is exactly what Ted Heath did in 1974, to which the response of the Great British public was, “Not you, mate.” These things can blow up, and what are thought of as weapons turn out to be boomerangs.
My right hon. Friend rightly identified one of the core problems, but the other is the way in which the railways were privatised. I am not getting into the argument about whether they should have been privatised, although, interestingly enough, Margaret Thatcher did not privatise rail, for the very good reason of all the practical complexities that it would entail. The creation of separate companies meant that negotiations dealt with one company after another and that, in fact, rail workers’ wages went up significantly. The Government seem to be trying to deal with that by sitting behind the negotiators—not at the table, but behind the curtain—and putting the arm up the back of the rail companies, preventing them from reaching an agreement that, as I understand it, they would not be averse to. The Government seem to want the dispute to go on, possibly for political reasons, even though they have settled in other parts of the economy. This measure would actually bring the Government right into the negotiations. Why not do things in the sensible way, by being part of the negotiations to try to reach a settlement, especially given that, as was mentioned, the industrial action seems to be largely receding?
I come back to the question I posed to the Minister: how does he think this will work? Even during the second world war, with the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, order 1305, all the powers and a national emergency, the Government could not to prevent strikes from taking place. When there were strikes in the mines, it was rightly said that we could not dig coal with bayonets. That does not mean that we should not try to resolve the strikes or that we should give in to every strike, but the blunt instrument of legislation has proved ineffective time and again, partly because of the ingenuity of the members, who will find ways around it, and partly because it starts to run up against the public’s concept of fair play. We saw that with the Pentonville five and the docks dispute, for example. I come back to my question, and I hope the Minister has had a note to tell him how this legislation will work—he can even intervene if he wants. What mechanism is the trade union supposed to use to ensure that enough workers attend to get to the 40% service? Is it expected to expel members, who will then go off and form an independent union? We would then have more multi-union competition going on.
The Minister will be pleased to know that, because I have a bad cold and my voice is giving out, I am about to conclude. The final point I will make is that the Government put a lot of weight in their relationship with the United States, including the possibility of a transatlantic trade deal. Given that this is the most pro-union Administration since Franklin Roosevelt’s, if the Government think that introducing anti-union legislation will in any way endear them to the US Congress and the White House, they have another thing coming.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite the union.
The passengers’ representative Transport Focus told the Transport Committee:
“There is no substitute for good modern industrial relations in any industries where changes and where terms and conditions are negotiated, and agreement is reached because you want to have workers who want to come to work.”
That is the view shared by the majority of the public, as well as by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which have said that they will decline to enforce minimum service levels. Will the Minister explain why the UK Government—in stark contrast to the devolved Administrations—are so singularly incapable of engaging with trade unions in good faith and instead feel the need to resort to these repressive, anti-democratic measures?
Rail is a safety-critical industry, with the vast majority of rail staff having some safety-critical element to their role. The Government’s deliberately divisive measures, which would compel workers to cross their own picket lines or else jeopardise their own and their colleagues’ most basic employment protections, risk causing serious damage to the spirit of co-operation and trust that is central to the safe running of our rail network. Does the Minister accept that if the Government took the time to listen to rail workers, they would recognise that, far from improving the service provided to commuters, these measures actually risk undermining passenger and staff safety?
There are few things harder for a trade unionist to contemplate than being forced to cross their own picket line. Does the Minister accept, as the Rail Safety and Standards Board has, that many union members who have been instructed to go to work despite having voted to take strike action may simply go off sick, and that this will make the planning of minimum services chaotic and unpredictable and increase risks to passengers?
These regulations risk creating a situation where a guard who has been issued a work notice might feel compelled to take out a train that they believe to be unsafe, when they previously would not have. Does the Minister share my concern that these regulations risk creating a conflict between rail workers’ responsibility to work safely and the requirements to comply with work notices or else lose vital employment protections?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments about the human rights aspect of the regulations in my capacity as acting Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. When the Committee published a very full legislative scrutiny report on the parent Act in March, we raised serious concerns about the Act’s compatibility with the UK’s obligations under international law, in particular the rights to freedom of assembly and to freedom of association under article 11. We share those concerns in relation to these regulations and the way in which they have been framed. As the Minister is aware, the European convention on human rights is, thankfully, still part of our domestic law, due to the survival of the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 11 does not refer expressly to the right to strike, but it has been interpreted as covering the taking of strike action—in a case brought against the Russian state, ironically.
When the Joint Committee on Human Rights took evidence from international law experts, the only country in the whole of Europe they could think of that had similarly draconian legislation to the United Kingdom was Hungary, as well as Russia, of course, although Russia has now left the ECHR—rightly so, after the invasion of Ukraine. I am not sure that the UK Government should want to be in the same grouping as the Government of Hungary, but by bringing in this draconian legislation, they are.
Article 11, as I said, has been interpreted as covering the taking of strike action. The European Court of Human Rights has also referred to requirements set down by the International Labour Organisation when assessing compliance with article 11. I know from my recent meeting with the TUC that it has reported the Government to the ILO in relation to the parent legislation, and it is also concerned about these draft regulations. In legal terms, a qualified right to strike is also provided for by article 8 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and article 6.4 of the European social charter, both of which bind the United Kingdom in international law.
Compliance with article 11 of the ECHR requires that any restrictions on strikes are
“in accordance with the law”,
which includes a requirement that the consequences of the law must be foreseeable for those it affects—we heard earlier that perhaps that is not so in the draft regulations. The restrictions must also be
“necessary in a democratic society”
to meet a “legitimate aim”. That condition requires the restrictions to meet a “pressing social need” and for them to be
“proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”.
I very much question whether these draconian regulations are proportionate to the aim being pursued.
The Committee might recall that at the tail-end of the year before last, the Government introduced a Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, which had an alternative mechanism in it. That was going to be based on negotiation and independent resolution of disagreements about minimum service levels. That kind of approach would reflect standards set out by the International Labour Organisation, and would involve less interference with article 11. It would therefore be more likely to meet the requirement of proportionality.
The Government have never adequately explained why they went from initially proposing negotiation and an independent resolution of minimum service levels to the draconian imposition of them. I will be interested to hear if the Minister has been able to come up with an answer to that.
As I said, the Joint Committee on Human Rights had similar concerns about the draft regulations as we did about the Act. Last week, in my capacity as acting Chair, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade setting out our concerns about the regulations. In doing so, I was very conscious of the fact that the consequences of employees failing to work as required by a minimum service level imposed through a work notice, and of trade unions not taking reasonable steps to ensure that their members complied, would include a loss of automatic protection against dismissal for participating in a strike. That is a big deal.
Sometimes, Government Front Benchers talk about the rights of the public as though somehow those rights were in conflict with the rights of trade unions in exercising the right to strike, but trade unionists and workers are members of the public. They face very straitened times at the moment, with the cost of living crisis, and some people are struggling to make ends meet. If people are struggling to make ends meet and their wages are not being raised in line with inflation, in particular in relation to energy bill inflation, the only option they have is to withhold their labour in a dispute. It is a fundamental part of our democracy that they should be able to do that.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her excellent speech. She is correct to say that the Government do not support decent wages for workers. I go back to the point that she made about protections from dismissal, because she is articulating the fact that, under this legislation, anyone could be dismissed without the right to an employment tribunal. Can she name any other groups of workers who do not have that basic right?
Joanna Cherry
The Joint Committee made that point in our initial report. A trade union’s involvement in an illegal strike could result in damages of up to £1 million. Any individual worker who participated in a strike that was found to have been illegal could be dismissed. The difficulty with these draft regulations is that workers and trade unions may not be able to foresee the legality of action, which is why the penalties are particularly concerning. We pointed out that lesser penalties for individuals—suspensions rather than dismissals— would make interference with the right to strike more proportionate.
John McDonnell
Let me try to give a concrete example of what the hon. and learned Member is talking about. An employer can take a union to court and argue that it has not performed its role of encouraging workers to go to work. As a result, the strike is rendered illegal. Any individuals who participate in that strike would therefore lose their legal protection against unfair dismissal. We could have employers using this as an opportunity to sack a large number of their workers. They could shed workers at will.
Joanna Cherry
To be frank, these are the kinds of laws and consequences that workers in Russia and Hungary face. We do not want them here in the United Kingdom.
Of course there should be minimum service levels; I am not arguing against that. However, they should be reached through negotiation. When negotiations between unions and the employer break down, there should be arbitration. That is what happens in a lot of other European countries.
I am concerned that the regulations on passenger trains would allow an employer to require 40% of timetabled services to run. That would allow some employees to participate in strikes, but infrastructure services such as signalling would have to be provided between 6 am and 10 pm for a substantial number of priority routes. That gives rise to a risk that employees working on those lines would be effectively prevented from striking.
I have met the TUC to discuss its concerns about these draft regulations. It made a number of points, some of which have been covered already, so I will confine my remarks to those that have not been covered. It said the rail industry is highly complex, so the effect of the draft regulations on the right to strike is difficult to quantify without access to industry information. The impact of any work notice will depend on how an employer seeks to deploy it. The TUC is concerned that the regulations will prevent many workers from taking industrial action. It says that providing 40% of a service is likely to require a lot more than 40% of staff once consideration has been given to cover staff, for instance.
The TUC also fears that many infrastructure staff on priority routes, including signal operators, will be denied the right to strike completely because their presence is necessary for the routes to run. It shares the concern I articulated in my letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
The TUC also made the point that the Government seem to have given little consideration to safety and the role of transport workers in ensuring that passengers are safe. Overcrowding could be a real issue when only a partial service is running. Rail workers need to know that they can apply “work safe” principles and, if necessary, stop working. It needs to be clear that, in those situations, staff would not face legal consequences—or political opprobrium from the Government.
The TUC also raised the significant uncertainty over whether the draft regulations include or exempt those working on freight services. Will the Minister clarify that?
The main point I want to raise with the Minister, and on which I want an answer, is this: what assessment have the Government made of the extent to which the article 11 rights of those working on passenger rail infrastructure on priority routes would be protected in cases when services must be provided between 6 am and 10 pm on strike days? A proper, full assessment with regard to the law is required to have been made in that respect in order for this to be proportionate interference with rights under article 11. I do not believe that that has been done, and I do not believe this is proportionate interference.
Huw Merriman
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their points. I should start with the right hon. Member for Warley, given that I said I would come back to him. His question was along the lines of what steps will be required. It is a generic test—it is a legal definition that one would look at. I can read it to him. It is not off a blue Post-it note; it is actually in the guidance. To paraphrase, when a work notice has been issued by a relevant employer, a trade union is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that its members named in the work notice comply with its requirements. In that regard, there is not that much of a role to play. I should make it absolutely clear—I think there were errors in some hon. Members’ starting points—that a work notice makes no differentiation between whether an employee is a member of a trade union or not, or whether they want to work or not. It is a generic test in that sense.
On the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, certain individuals may therefore find themselves on a work notice more than others, so some regard will be given to ensure that if a work notice has been given to an employee in one particular industrial action, they are not taken up the next time to ensure they have their right to strike. To go back to the right hon. Member for Warley, it is more that the trade union should not take any steps to stop that individual coming to work under a work notice, rather than it being required to do anything, but it is a test. I worked as an in-house lawyer for 18 years, and I often looked at what reasonable steps meant and how I would interpret that. There is enough precedent in court to do that.
John McDonnell
It is absolutely critical to get this clear. If a trade union leader engages in a debate during a dispute and argues that the offer from the employer is not satisfactory, and therefore that there should be a strike and people should take industrial action, does that influence the requirements of taking reasonable steps, or does it go beyond reasonable steps?
Huw Merriman
What the right hon. Gentleman is describing is the calling of industrial action in the first place. The idea behind these regulations, of course, is that, when industrial action has been called and an employer chooses at their discretion to issue a work notice—I will come back to that, because it is key that it is not the Government but the employer who decides—that is where the determination comes in. It is whether the trade union, after the work notice has been issued, is taking reasonable steps, so I would differentiate in that regard.
John McDonnell
So if that debate takes place while the strike is on, and the trade union general secretary urges their members to continue with the strike, does that influence it? Is that part of undermining and encouragement?
Huw Merriman
Well, I am going into a lot of detail here, and that would ultimately be for a court to determine. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is asking what happens if a person is known to be on a work notice and somebody reads out, “X must ensure they are taking industrial action.” The courts might argue that that is not a reasonable step, but hopefully our examples have given enough clarity.
Again, I want to be absolutely clear on this point. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and I was interested in the point he made about Scotland. It is absolutely clear that it is down to each individual employer to determine whether they wish to issue work notices or whether they are able to gain enough traction from the workforce without the issuance of work notices. That is not a matter for Government; it is down to the employer. I was intrigued that the hon. Gentleman made it pretty clear that he would not give the same freedom to employers when it comes to ScotRail, because he seemed to intimate that it would not be taking part. He seems to be taking more of a forthright view of what the employer should do than the Government.
Gavin Newlands
ScotRail is owned and operated by the Scottish Government, who have been very clear in their attitude to this legislation: they will not issue work notices. While I am on my feet, I want to quickly ask about Network Rail, which is obviously a reserved issue that comes under the auspices of the Department for Transport, but it operates slightly independently in Scotland. Some of its workforce will potentially fall under a work notice for DFT, but obviously a lot of network in Scotland is used only by ScotRail. How will that work?
Huw Merriman
There are interesting parallels. When I talk about train operators, I also mean the operators of last resort: Southeastern, the east coast main line and TransPennine Express. They are under the same control that he referenced the Executive in Scotland having. We, as the Government, will treat those with the exact same autonomy, and will not be autocratic; we will not tell them what they must and must not do. There is talk of this legislation being controlling, but we are demonstrating that we are not being controlling, whereas the hon. Gentleman is demonstrating that he would perhaps intervene, which is obviously a policy matter for him.
Network Rail is, of course, an arm’s length body. It will be down to Network Rail across the whole of Great Britain to determine whether it wishes to use the work notices, when it comes to category B. That will be a matter for Network Rail in Scotland, as it will be in England, and not for me, the hon. Member or the Scottish Executive.
I want to come back to a point that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South and others mentioned: safety. Let me be absolutely crystal clear—this is why we have the safest railway in Europe—that there will be no compromise when it comes to safety and these regulations. Those are not just words. Everyone needs to remember that we already have a minimum service; it is the key route strategy, and it operates right now, but our contention is that it does not operate to the same extent—it is about 20%. Safety is the most important ingredient during a strike day, as it is during a non-strike day. There will be no difference to that, as far as the regulations are concerned; safety will always be paramount in the railways.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I wonder whether the reason that we have one of the safest railways in the world is the same reason that my family and I do not have fingers missing from industrial accidents. Maybe the people we should thank for that are the trade unions.
Huw Merriman
Of course I pay tribute to everybody on the railway who takes safety so seriously, but it is fair to say that we had trade unions when we did not have such a safe railway, and we have them now that there is a safe railway. That seems to suggest that it is the entire railway family that makes railways safe. We have the independent Rail Safety and Standards Board, and we will ensure that safety is paramount on the railways.
I will touch on freight. Freight is not included in the regulations. That was part of the consultation; the freight industry did not wish to be included, but, of course, freight benefits from the regulations. If there is an infrastructure strike and more of the key route network can be opened up, that means that more freight can be delivered, as well, which is important.
I come back to a point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South that was slightly contradicted by other hon. Members. That was that the Secretary of State should get to the table and deal with the trade unions. Of course, we have had some deals with the trade unions. According to the right hon. Member for Warley, the Government want the industrial action to continue, and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that the Government ultimately control all train operations. If we are both controlling and making deals, that must mean that the Government have got round the table and had those discussions; I certainly know about the discussions that I have had. Or perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen pluck out arguments that suit them. When it comes down to it, we want industrial action to be settled. We welcome Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association and Unite the Union settling their industrial action, and it looks as though—we will find out on Thursday—the RMT has settled its action as well.
We do not want to use these regulations, because we would rather there were no strikes at all. The Opposition claim to be the party of the workers when it comes to the rail workers, but not the workers who use the trains. A train driver is paid £60,000 for a 35-hour, four-day working week—we have an offer on the table to increase that to £65,000—but people on those trains who earn a lot less are inconvenienced, and cannot get where they are going, because there is no proper minimum service. I have a constituent who writes to me to say, “I’m on a zero-hours contract; when train drivers go on strike, I don’t get the opportunity”—
Huw Merriman
The key is to ensure that those individuals have the right to go to work. It may be asked, “Why don’t you ban zero-hours contracts?”. I am pleased to hear that that is now Labour policy. We want to ensure that those who want to go to work, and who are not as well paid as train drivers, have the choice to do so. That is the balance, and the measures are proportionate.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
I should declare that, surprisingly, I am a member of a trade union—a moderate one, I have to say. I have heard a lot of noise from the Opposition about safety and workers’ rights, but not much about the passengers. Does the Minister agree that the only thing Labour cares about is the flow of money from their union paymasters?
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend has said it, and obviously he has the experience to do so. It is a fair point that needs to be considered. Through the regulations, we are taking a proportionate approach that still allows those who wish to strike the right to do so. Equally, it allows those who wish to go about their lawful business—to go to work, go to school, get skills or go to their health appointment—the right to do so. Those people deserve that right. We should be on the side of people who really need train services.
Huw Merriman
I will not give way. I have been very generous with my time.
It has been suggested that the regulations will just cause rail workers to go off sick. Obviously, that is a contractual employment matter; no one is allowed just to go off sick under the terms of their contract. It will be down to employers to determine whether to use the work notices. They will then determine how the work notices operated, see how they worked, and decide whether individuals’ behaviour needs to be looked at, but I would not expect anyone in the rail industry, good people as they are, to go off sick unless they were sick. I am sure that everybody on the Committee would agree on that.
I will address the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. With regard to article 11, there has to be a proportionate approach. That will be a legal test, and we believe that the test is met. I believe that she also referred to the RPC impact assessment not being published. As requested, we provided further work to that body on 7 November. The RPC is now considering the input we made, and we wait to hear from it. A view was taken that information on matters relating to the umbrella Act would not need to be provided under the regulations, because that was for the umbrella Act. The RPC wanted more information, and we were happy to provide it. The impacts on small and medium-sized businesses, which will differ across the rail network, was another matter to be addressed. We take impact assessments seriously in the Department; we have a very good record of delivering them, and will continue to work to ensure that they are delivered.
The regulations make possible a considerable improvement in the service that can be delivered during rail strikes. They will support passengers who are making important journeys, including to work and to access vital services, and will limit strikes’ impacts on the economy. However, that is carefully and proportionately balanced with workers’ ability to take strike action. Although I am sure we all hope that strike action can be avoided, when they do take place, the regulations will provide a means of addressing the disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public, communities and businesses. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the Minister for his response. However, it is still not clear why the SI is being pushed through without proper scrutiny. As we have heard said tonight, what’s the rush? This is dreadful policymaking practice, with potentially serious consequences, and it seems that the Government have not thought through how the arrangements will be managed across the network and how many staff will be denied the right to strike. The fact remains that only the Secretary of State’s getting round the table will solve the ongoing rail dispute— something that he has refused to do throughout the year. For that reason, we will vote against the SI this evening.
Question put.
Ministerial Correction
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I believe that the ability to make virgin steel is crucial to the UK’s defence capabilities. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has been a long-running champion of the steel sector and its importance to her constituents. Of course, we want a smooth transition between blast furnace and electronic arc steel making technology. Steel remains incredibly important to the defence sector. Take the Type 26: almost 50% of that is British steel. That is 1,400 tonnes per ship. That underlines why it is so important that, in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, we continue to support the steel sector.
[Official Report, 20 November 2023, Vol. 741, c. 24.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft).
The correct answer should have been:
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has been a long-running champion of the steel sector and its importance to her constituents. Of course, we want a smooth transition between blast furnace and electronic arc steel making technology. Steel remains incredibly important to the defence sector. Take the Type 26: almost 50% by value of that is British steel. That is 1,400 tonnes per ship. That underlines why it is so important that, in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, we continue to support the steel sector.
Petitions
Road closures in South Northamptonshire
Development proposals at 21 High Trees Avenue
Southbourne Crossroads Car Park
The Kytes Regeneration Project
Westminster Hall
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Legislation on Dangerous Dogs
(5 months, 1 week 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
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about sub judice resolution. I am sure Members have relevant constituency cases that they might want to raise in the debate. I remind them that under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution, Members should not refer to any cases where there are ongoing legal proceedings; they should also exercise caution if raising matters that are not the subject of active legal proceedings, but where discussion could prejudice ongoing police or other law enforcement investigations.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.
Jack was 10. His mum, Emma, described him as “our perfect boy”. On 8 November 2021, Jack went to call on a friend. He was attacked and killed by an XL bully. Jack suffered fatal injuries. He was 10 years old, and his life was over—absolutely tragic. Jack’s mum, Emma, told me that their lives will never be the same again. The community came together and showed huge support for Emma and her family, but sadly Jack is gone forever. I have had to lead petition debates on many subjects, often in circumstances where a life has been lost, but I do not believe that I have ever had to speak when there has been a loss of life in such horrific circumstances.
We have two petitions before us for debate. The first calls for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to be repealed; the second calls for the Act not to include the XL bully. Having heard Emma’s story and taken evidence before today, and having seen and heard of many of these attacks, I can understand why the Government have announced a ban, but before I move on to the arguments, I will make it clear that Emma never called for the ban, as she believed that it would never happen. Shockingly, since the announcement of the ban, Emma has received real abuse from people who disagree with it. Doing that to a grieving mother is abhorrent, and I hope that if those responsible are caught, they are dealt with severely. Emma has suffered enough. Her only goal is to ensure that no one else has to go through such an ordeal. My heart goes out to her.
I will turn to the position of the Government and the petitioners. Following a concerning rise in attacks and fatalities caused by XL bully dogs, the Government have added the breed to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. To help current owners adapt to the new laws, the changes will come into force in two stages. From 31 December 2023, it will be against the law to sell an XL bully dog, to abandon an XL bully dog or let it stray, to give away an XL bully dog, to breed from an XL bully dog and to have an XL bully in public without a lead and muzzle. From 1 February 2024, it will be a criminal offence to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales unless the dog has a certificate of exemption.
There is help with getting an exemption certificate on the Government website. If people want to keep their dog, it must be microchipped, kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in public, kept in a secure place so that it cannot escape, and neutered. The owner must be over 16 years old, take out third-party public liability insurance against their dog injuring other people, and be able to show the certificate of exemption when asked by a police officer or council dog warden, either at the time or within five days.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about what the Government have laid out on their website. One of my concerns is about the ban coming in so quickly. Does he believe that the public have enough information, or know where to find the information, to enable conscientious owners who want to look after these dogs and protect them to make an informed decision? Is there enough time to ensure that the information about what is needed from responsible owners gets out?
Nick Fletcher
My hon. Friend is right is right to raise that point, which I will come to later in my speech.
I have discussed these petitions with many friends and colleagues. Like me, after hearing of such horrific attacks, they found it hard to believe the numbers that support repealing the ban. We have banned other dogs in the past, and these dogs are obviously dangerous, so who would not want to ban them? What is the reason? Let us explore further. During my research, I spoke to many professionals in this field; I attended six evidence sessions, and I attended the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in October.
What has been said by the petitioners? Anita Mehdi, the creator of the main petition, states that she believes that adding another breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act is not the right way forward. She also believes that the media is to blame for fearmongering, and there is no official data on dog breeds and dog attacks. Anita hopes for a platform where accurate data can be recorded. Anita also believes that it is dangerous to class a dog by its type, when it is irresponsible owners that need to be targeted. She believes that the Calgary model is a good example that the Government should take into consideration when looking into responsible ownership. When asked about muzzles, Anita explained that responsible owners will comply and use them, but there will be owners who will not, and they need to be tackled.
Glyn Saville, a petitioner against the XL bully ban, who is here today, says that the number of XL bullies is in excess of 90,000 and that implementing the ban will therefore be very difficult. He also says that these dogs are not bred to be aggressive to humans—although some people may disagree—and that if a ban is brought into effect, families living in social housing will be at real risk of losing their pets if they wish to stay there, as landlords can refuse exempted dogs. Another petitioner, who has called for muzzles not to be part of the ban, said that her dog can now not defend itself and that it has being attacked by other dogs, since having to wear a muzzle.
Even the professionals have concerns. The British Veterinary Association stated that banning one breed will not work. The BVA representative compared it to the banning of a single weapon and explained that it may work in the short term but that the ultimate goal is surrounded by so many complex social issues that it would be difficult for it to last in the long term.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Emma, whose son, Jack, was brutally killed by an XL bully dog two years ago, is my constituent. Emma is of the opinion that, whatever happens with regards to a ban on XL bullies—the hon. Member has touched upon the enormous difficulties and complications—it is vital that we place the emphasis on tackling the whole issue of dangerous dogs. A one-off action by the Government is not enough; it can never be enough. We need a thorough, wholesale examination of dog breeding and dog training practices, and we need to look at the specific question of responsible ownership. All of those issues have to be considered so that our society is truly safer.
Nick Fletcher
I will be coming to many of the points that the hon. Member raises. Hopefully, the Minister can shed some light on them, too.
Both the BVA, when I spoke to its representatives at the London Vet Show, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) raised the fact that most fatalities have occurred in people’s houses, rather than when a dog has been out. Obviously, in the house, dogs are not muzzled or on a short lead. They also asked that the Dangerous Dog Act be reviewed and highlighted that section 3 of the Act gives scope for something to be done about controlling dogs. I often say that it is not always new legislation but enforcement of existing legislation that is needed. That also needs to be looked at.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals explained that it wants the Government to slow down the pace of the ban coming into force, mainly because of its implications and consequences. It also raised the fact that it is becoming incredibly difficult to ensure that everyone who owns an XL bully can do what they need to do before the deadline in order to keep their dog. The RSPCA mentioned that it is seeing abandonment and relinquishment of these types of due due to unexpected costs before Christmas.The BVA highlighted that the window for neutering should be extended for another six months for dogs under seven months old, as neutering has an impact on their growth. The RSPCA suggested that there be a campaign on responsible dog ownership but also suggested that stakeholders be brought together to see what dog legislation may look like in the next five years.
In addition to my research, The Mirror is supporting the proposed Jack Lis law, which calls for a different approach to dog legislation that will include all dogs and focus on the breeding, training and sale of dogs.
There is much interest in this topic, and rightly so. I do not think that anyone who signed these petitions should be vilified. Many people understand that something needs to be done, but when experts agree that there are problems, the Government should listen. We have to stop these incidents occurring, that is for sure. If we are to ban the XL bully, the timeline for neutering definitely needs to be looked at, and we must really push for responsible ownership.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am genuinely conflicted about this. I was on the EFRA Select Committee when it conducted a previous inquiry into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through and not fit for purpose. At the same time, my heart goes out to any family who has been affected by an XL bully dog killing someone, particularly a child. When we talk about responsible dog ownership and training courses or anything like that, my concern is that it will be the owners who are already responsible who take them up, and it is very difficult to spot an irresponsible owner until the dog has caused harm. Has the Committee looked at that?
Nick Fletcher
The Petitions Committee has not looked at that, but I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done. I am coming on to that in the next part of my speech.
DEFRA has had a responsible dog ownership steering group, which published a report and confirmed that the recommendations would be shared later this year. Can the Minister say when they will be shared? The Calgary model was mentioned many times during my research, so we have something that we can copy, and improve if required.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In the light of the concerning incidents involving dog attacks, particularly those attributed to XL bully breeds, does he agree that the Government should shed light on their plans to implement DNA sampling and to adopt the Calgary model for dog classification in order to ensure accurate identification and classification of such dogs?
Nick Fletcher
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We should definitely look at the Calgary model. I know that the type and breed of dogs is a contentious area, and some work needs to be done on it, but I genuinely believe that people know what type of dog they have. They know whether they have an XL bully. We need to be really careful not to let classification be used as a way of not muzzling dogs that could cause harm. That is the last thing we want.
We are an animal-loving country, but we must encourage personal responsibility when making the decision to own a pet. We must choose a dog that fits our home, our family and our lifestyle. Dog owners must ensure that they understand the costs involved and that they train their dogs correctly—and themselves, for that matter. Some say that we need to enforce chipping of dogs and have a database that accurately records all pets and any bites that have occurred, no matter how minor. We must also look at breeders to see what can be done; many breeders are good, but not all.
We must never again have to hear of another story like Emma’s. In memory of little Jack, we should work collectively to come up with the right answers for the safety of the public and of our pets—and we must do it quickly.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline.
This is an extremely emotive issue, and I hope people understand the views of others. What the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said about 10-year-old Jack is enough to make anyone despair—it is very, very sad. My constituency has the highest number of individuals who signed the petition—nearly 3,000—and the constituency next to mine, Blyth Valley, has the second highest, so the House can see that views are split.
It is a fact that more people—it seems to be mainly young people—are being injured in such incidents. According to the police figures, there were 11,373 incidents between July 2021 and June 2022, and 13,940 this year. This cannot continue; it is absolutely desperate stuff. Just a few weeks ago, little Kaiden Burn, my constituent, was playing in the street when he was mauled by a dog. It was not muzzled or on a lead; it was running rampant through the street, but the thing is that it had done it before. The police were aware of it, but nothing happened, and that wonderful young lad was mauled while playing in his own street.
As I say, this is a very emotive issue. As a dog lover, I understand that people are concerned about losing a much loved, well behaved pet because a Government regulation considers all dogs with a certain look to be dangerous and bans them. There must be a recognition that each individual dog has its own temperament, personality and character. I agree with a number of the comments made by the hon. Member for Don Valley, the RSPCA and other organisations: banning dogs merely based on what they look like is not the best approach. The latest breed to be treated in this manner, which is of course why we are here today, is the American XL bully. I understand the anxiety of responsible owners of those dogs or dogs that simply look like that breed, but we must recognise that there is a problem with dangerous dogs: they have caused far too many deaths and serious injuries, and the numbers are increasing. Not all owners have had the training or have the knowledge required to own certain types of dogs.
There are many problems, but one of the core ones is the horrendous increase in unscrupulous backyard breeders of dogs of this nature. Some people think they can make a few bob out of selling the dogs, but they do not have a clue what they are doing and it is causing absolute mayhem. Some of the legislation that has been put in place tackles that to a certain degree, but the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is inflexible, crude and fails to address the complex issues that many hon. Members have mentioned. As a consequence, it fails in its stated aim of protecting people from dog attacks, so a fresh approach and more sophisticated legislation on dangerous dogs is needed. We should recognise that this is not just about the XL bully; it is about dangerous dogs.
We talk about the XL bullies, but what is an XL bully? Basically, it is a crossbreed. We cannot just say, “Well that dog looks like an XL bully,” and make some measurement so it qualifies to be euthanised. That is not the right approach—it really is not. A lot of these XL bullies are absolutely wonderful dogs. I bet most people in here have a pet of their own, and they would not want somebody coming knocking on their door saying that their dog looked like it was of a certain breed, “So unfortunately, my friend, if you don’t have the papers required under the amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we will have to take it away and put it down.” That really is not the right approach, understanding the families who suffered so greatly because of dangerous dogs.
The information sent out says that if the dog meets certain characteristics, it might be considered as an XL bully—what does that mean? It is not about whether someone has an XL bully, but if their dog’s breed might be an XL bully. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) made a really fair point: there needs to be a bit of definition. I understand that if we check the DNA of any particular dog, it will go back to a million years ago and have different characteristics of different breeds. If we look at a dalmation, we know it is a dalmation because it has black spots and a white coat. However, things are not the same for XL bullies.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes such a powerful point. I have been struck by how constructive the correspondence from both sides has been on this issue, given how emotive it is. As a mum, I find it devastating to think about children being mauled. But a constituent wrote to me and said:
“Although I do not own an XL Bully, family members and close friends own Staffordshire terriers, Labrador crosses, and other bully crosses, which have been proved by DNA not to be XL Bully’s, although, under the current guidelines, would incorrectly see them be classified as XL Bully’s.”
The issue is sending shivers up the spines of many pet owners, and it is incumbent on us to think it through very carefully.
Ian Lavery
The hon. Lady makes a positive and accurate point. My family dog—it is not mine, but my son’s—Olive, is a beautiful young puppy, but I am pleased that she has shorter legs. If she had had longer legs, I’m telling you that somebody would be saying that she was a dangerous dog. But she is one of the most wonderful animals ever. The hon. Lady makes a valid point.
Staffies—Staffordshire bull terriers—are fantastic animals. Anybody with any expertise in the dog world knows about Staffordshire bull terriers. There will be the odd bad one in any breed, by the way: there can be bad labradors and bad retrievers. But what is being said is that we need to look at dangerous dogs, not just XL bullies. I am wondering: who is going to police this? Who is going to be knocking on the doors with a tape measure? As has been mentioned, a lot of families are concerned that their dogs might be classified because they look like something. They might lose a loving pet—it is not right.
I urge the Minister to think about two main points. We have to ensure that people follow Government legislation and what has been put out there. It is essential that they do that. The Government have to pause and review this entire legislation and come forward with amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act, not just focus solely on one potential breed that might be considered to look like something that it might not be. It is absolutely crazy. At the same time, please do not think that I do not want any legislation. I want to ensure that not a single person is mauled again by any dogs, anywhere in this country. I would support whatever we can do to do that properly—properly, man.
Another real point is the fear of dumping before the 31 December deadline. A huge issue is that people will dump these dogs, whether that is because they cannot afford it or they do not understand the legislation. We then have the issue that, if the dogs are put into an animal rescue centre after the 31 December, they cannot be removed—so the rescue centres could be inundated with dogs.
There is also a massive issue with the veterinary surgeons. If I was a vet, I would not be putting a healthy dog down. I would not. It is important that we put dangerous dogs to sleep, but I would not be putting healthy dogs down because the Government said so— I think that is really important.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend has made a number of very good points indeed. Does he share my concern about the Government’s introduction of a ban on XL bullies? Many of the illegal breeders are quite unscrupulous individuals, as he has mentioned; if action is not taken against them, they will simply move on and create another kind of dog. As he says, the XL bully is not a distinct breed but an amalgamation of other breeds. The same thing might happen with another kind of dog if action is not taken against those illegal breeders.
Ian Lavery
Absolutely, that is so true. One of my final points is about unscrupulous owners and breeders. As I mentioned before, the breeders are crossbreeding these dogs with different types and what for? A lot of these owners love the fact that they can walk around with the XL bully and say, “Look at me—I’m big and I’m tough. I’ve got this dog, and I’ll set it on you.” But the vast majority of owners are responsible and they love their dogs. That is the huge issue in this debate today.
My final point is basically focused at the Minister. The letter from 31 October mentions that if an owner wants to put their dog down, the Government will give them £200 to do so. What about the people who are struggling, who have a dog, and who are looking after the dog very well? They might not be able to afford the insurance or the licence—the £92. What about the Government considering some sort of financial support to regulate and regularise good, honest owners and good, honest breeders?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. As the Secretary of State who introduced this legislation—in fact, it was my last act in Government—I thought it appropriate to contribute to today’s debate.
The debate surrounding the ban on XL bully dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is itself a complex issue that evokes strong emotions. I understand that very much, and the approach taken was carefully considered. I was also aware before your earlier ruling, Dame Caroline, that there are potential legal challenges against the Government, so I need to be measured and not reveal all the information that we considered during this time.
I have had three rescue dogs, and my mother and sister have another rescue dog at the moment. There is no doubt that an adorable pet brings a lot to people’s lives and hearts. I am also very conscious of the challenges faced by those people who have suffered from dog attacks, whether it be against their children, themselves, or indeed their own pets. They obviously can be very distressed by that.
In reality, there was no knee-jerk reaction; there were simply too many attacks happening, and the proportion of attacks by XL bully-type dogs was considerably higher than others. Yes, I am sure we have all read about how other dogs—whether a collie, Jack Russell or potentially a rottweiler—have also been involved in many attacks. The issue is about the proportion and seriousness of the attacks, and indeed about how they can be stopped—that is pretty difficult. It is about the fatalities as well.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about how we define a breed, and some of the point is that this breed is not defined. I pay tribute to the chief veterinary officer and the many officials who have been involved extensively in this sensitive matter, working with animal welfare experts and experts from the police and, indeed, local councils, who will have to undertake a lot of this work. I want to assure the House that a lot of care has been taken over this approach, and that is also why a lot of this will be through guidance and there will be individual decisions.
I come back to the fact that, of course, many of these dogs are pets. They are not necessarily status symbols, but we know that they have been used for that. We see a lot of that in how the ears of these dogs have been cropped to give them a more aggressive feel and appearance, despite the fact that that is already illegal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is not illegal to import the dogs, but we are talking about an extensive element where that is the case. Since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there have been some amendments along the way, partly driven through case law. That was back in ’97, and there were further regulations in 2015, but there was a specific reason for that. I suggest that the extent of the attacks is the reason why the XL bully is the first breed to have been added to section 1 since 1991.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is an esteemed legislator of great repute. Does she agree therefore that in this Parliament we cannot legislate with imprecision? That is exactly what the statutory instrument does. It talks about “characteristics”, which it says may or may not be necessary for the definition. Surely we need to make the law clear beyond peradventure so that the people of this country know which side of the law they are on.
Dr Coffey
I would say to my hon. Friend that the guidance is as clear as it can be. It gives a number of physical characteristics, and I am sure the Minister will say more about that and the process being gone through. I suppose that in introducing the legislation, I very much wanted to put across that the issue is not being considered lightly and that a lot of care and attention has been given to the detail.
I must admit that I have had several death threats about this legislation and I am conscious that it is driving those strong emotions. What I will say is that the Government took an approach that would allow time for people to rehome an XL bully-type dog if they felt they could not keep it. Also, the situation is very different from what has happened recently, when people have had a pit bull or similar: owners can still apply to get a certificate and join the index of exempt dogs. The default here is that every person who registers their XL bully-type dog will get a certificate automatically and will automatically join the index. That is a significant difference, even though I am conscious it will cost some money to do that.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State, and the point she is making should be considered. From 31 December, breeding, selling, advertising, gifting and abandoning XL bully dogs will be illegal, but there is also the issue of rehoming. A Sky report over the weekend said that 246 of these dogs are waiting to be rehomed. I had a constituent stop me on the high street who wanted to rehome one of these dogs but was struggling to get the information on how to go about doing that. I am slightly concerned because rehoming is one way of saving these dogs by ensuring they get support from a responsible owner who will take on a licence. Could a carve-out for rehoming be considered, so that it is pushed back to 1 February in line with the rest of the exemptions coming in?
Dr Coffey
I am not in Government anymore, so that is a question for the Minister. I think that was done to bring to an end the opportunity for the transfer of dogs. It is admittedly on a rapid timescale, but we must remember the reason why we are taking this approach at all: to try to stop attacks. People read about attacks every week, and they are happening around the country. Somebody may absolutely want to help a dog by rehoming it, but they need a certain amount of training to look after such a strong animal.
If we think about an adult XL bully dog, we are talking about something that weighs about 70 kg. These are big dogs. They really have a lot of strength and, frankly, the only way to unlock their jaws once they latch on to somebody is basically to choke them. Do not kick them in the head or anything like that—that will only make them grab on even tighter. That is what we are dealing with. Sadly, some of these dogs do get out of control and it is their characteristics that lead them to have that physical strength. Also, we must not get away from the fact that they were originally parts of various bits of pit bulls, mastiffs and similar.
It is, of course, understandable why people who have their XL bully dog next to their children every night, with the dog probably licking the children to death—if that makes sense—think it will protect them. But there is the risk and the results of that risk are happening too often.
I am not planning to linger in this debate; I will just say briefly why I think this an effective piece of legislation. I am very conscious of the reviews that have happened and how different Select Committees have called for more extensive action. I am also very aware that the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and similar charities do not think the legislation effective. However, the reality is that the number of attacks by pit bulls basically went away when this legislation was put into place. The muzzling and the different licence approach are things that we need to happen as quickly as possible for the existing XL bully dogs in this country.
As for alternatives, there has been a lot of talk about licensing. Well, licensing to own a dog was scrapped a long time ago. I do not think that councils would welcome having to take on the whole licensing of dogs right across the country. Of course there has to be enforcement on breeding and disreputable practices. In section 3 of the 1991 Act, there is a wider approach for all dogs; any dog can be dangerous. So far, however, five specific dogs have been singled out, because of their characteristics.
I am very conscious that the job of politicians is to make law. I appreciate that one of my hon. Friends does not think this law is necessarily the right way. But this is what we do—one day something can be legal and the next day it can be illegal. We do these things because we believe they are the right thing to do.
It is of course open to Members to pray against this statutory instrument, but I really hope that does not happen because it is important that people get certainty and can take positive action. As I say, anybody who has an XL bully dog right now will be granted the certificate to join the index of exempt dogs. In effect, that will be automatic, as long as the conditions are complied with and they can say so on that register.
I am conscious that many people want to speak today. In conclusion, people must have time to rehome and everybody who loves their XL bully should be able to keep it. I commend the legislation, which is still passing through the House.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)
It is always an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs, and so admirably led by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on her appointment as Chair of the Petitions Committee.
Currently, four breeds are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: the pit bull terrier; the Japanese tosa; the dogo argentino; and the fila braziliero. However, following the rise in the number of attacks and fatalities, the Government have added the XL bully to the list of banned breeds. From 31 December, strict conditions will need to be complied with and from 1 February 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own an XL bully in England or Wales without a certificate of exemption.
Dogs suspected of being of a prohibited type are assessed against a standard that describes what a particular type of dog should look like. However, the number of characteristics is not a guide and neither is the way in which the assessment should be conducted, which results in many legal breeds and crossbreeds fitting the standard, regardless of the dog’s behaviour.
I am shocked and saddened by the appalling reports of attacks and deaths that have dominated the news recently. Obviously, I share the public’s concerns and agree that current legislation has not prevented these serious dog attacks. Urgent action is clearly needed, but breed-specific legislation is not the answer. The Dangerous Dogs Act has failed to protect the public since it was introduced, and dog bite incidents have risen since then.
Animal welfare, and particularly dog welfare, is an issue close to my heart. During the past five years, I have worked closely with Vanessa Waddon of Hope Rescue in Llanharan, which is a dog rescue centre that often takes in dogs that have been seized from illegal breeders. Since the ban was announced on 15 September, it has been inundated with calls and messages from worried owners asking for advice, and especially from those who are not sure whether their dogs meet the standard because it is so wide.
Hope Rescue is receiving up to five calls a day from owners in all areas of the UK asking it to take in their XL bully. It is concerned that, as the date approaches, there is a risk that some dogs will simply be abandoned. The rescue holds several stray dog contracts, so there is a chance that those dogs will enter it as strays. Capacity is already under huge pressure due to the current animal welfare crisis, which has resulted from the increased number of dogs purchased during the pandemic and the subsequent cost of living crisis. In fact, the centre is over capacity and is having to pay for overflow kennelling to ensure that it can meet its stray dog commitments to local authorities. The likely abandonments will put additional pressure on a system that is already broken due to a lack of kennel capacity.
Hope Rescue has already seen an increase in the number of large bull breeds coming through the stray dog system—again due to the breadth of the standard. The predicted increase in the number of dogs coming through the system is likely to impact the centre’s ability to help other dogs urgently in need, especially through its work supporting local authorities with dogs seized from illegal and low-welfare breeders. That could lead to dogs being left to suffer longer in poor conditions, as there is nowhere for them to go. The centre is proud of the much-needed support it provides to licensing teams in Wales, and it is heartbreaking that it may not be able to help in the future.
Hope Rescue is also hugely concerned about the XL bullies currently in its care that it does not yet own. They have been seized from illegal breeders but have not been signed over through the section 20 court process. These are young, rehomeable dogs, and the centre has worked hard with them to prepare them for their new homes. It is worried that the court process will not be completed in time to rehome them before the ban comes in and that it will have no choice but to euthanise them. Hope Rescue is also worried about any XL bully types that come into its care as the 31 December deadline gets nearer. As a responsible rescue, it takes Hope Rescue time to properly assess a dog for rehoming, but after that date it will not be able to rehome them.
The wellbeing of staff is a huge and legitimate concern. These passionate and caring individuals have chosen a career in animal welfare because they want to make a positive difference to the lives of rescued dogs. Things are already tough for the staff due to the animal welfare crisis and the number of dogs coming into their care. Being forced to euthanise healthy, rehomeable dogs, which may never have put a paw wrong, will be devastating for them.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
I have listened intently to the debate because, like many Members, I feel conflicted about it. My interest was piqued last summer when three women who were walking their dogs in a park in Newton-le-Willows in my constituency were attacked by an XL bully. Their dogs were badly injured, and they were injured and have been traumatised too. It is important to make the point that many who are in favour of the Government’s proposals are also dog lovers, and they and their animals deserve our consideration and protection as well.
Christina Rees
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I really respect his view, which he put in a measured way.
On behalf of Hope Rescue, I urge the UK Government to consider letting rescue centres rehome XL bully types that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a rescue centre.
Wayne David
The hon. Member and I visited the Hope Rescue centre in Llanharan a few months ago, where we saw and heard many moving things. I was particularly moved by the number of deformed dogs that the centre had taken from illegal dog breeders, many of which would otherwise have had to be put down. That brought home to me how illegal breeding is such a menace and really needs to be clamped down on. Does the hon. Member agree?
Christina Rees
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Not many people know this, but we were in school together many years ago at Cynffig Comprehensive School, so I always listen to his views, and I do agree with him on this.
On behalf of Hope Rescue, I urge the UK Government to consider letting rescue centres rehome XL bully types—that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a rescue centre—subject to the exemption process and being assessed for suitable rehoming.
A friend of mine, Professor John Cooper KC, will be taking the legal challenge to the Government if the ban is not halted. Between 2016 and 2017, John and I served on the Bach commission, which was chaired by Lord Willy Bach and which provided detailed proposals on establishing the right to access justice as a fundamental and enforceable public entitlement. John has always been a staunch advocate of animal welfare both in and out of court, as well as being relentless in his representation of people who find themselves in the most vulnerable of situations. His work with dogs includes advising on the reform of the Dangerous Dogs Act—particularly the flawed breed-specific legislation regime—and advising on and drafting proposals for a more effective sentencing regime for pet theft. A former columnist for Dogs Today, John has a rescue lurcher called Lawrence.
Professor Cooper KC has stated:
“This is knee jerk legislation, which has neither maturely reflected on the wealth of evidence which is available or taken the time to reasonably consider the best ways to protect the public and act rationally in relation to the dog. It simply will not work.
Any proposed ban is no more than putting a sticking plaster over the issue as unscrupulous breeders simply move on to the next dog.
The answer according to the government’s own previous reports is an effective licensing regime, responsible ownership and stricter penalties and sentencing powers in the courts.
The law, maturely and carefully considered, can protect the public. This, tragically, goes nowhere near that.”
I cannot agree more with Professor Cooper’s words. Nor can I disagree with the heartfelt plea of Vanessa Waddon and her wonderful staff at Hope Rescue. For those reasons I call on the Government to halt the ban’s implementation, support responsible rescue centres, review the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation and carefully consider how to properly protect the public from serious and fatal dog attacks.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
I call the Chairman of the EFRA Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Thank you, Dame Caroline. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for presenting this debate in a very balanced way. As Chair of the EFRA Committee, I can say that this issue has been on our radar for some time—indeed, we had an evidence session on it. We were particularly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who is a qualified veterinary surgeon and a member of the Committee, for the expertise he brought to bear. It was the Committee’s unanimous view that the ban is needed.
Why have the Government taken action? We have heard of appalling attacks. Fatal attacks are only the tip of the iceberg, and there have been many other reports in the media of people being attacked by dogs and of the police or members of the public having to intervene. And, of course, there are no statistics at all for dog-on-dog attacks, as we have heard.
The statistics do not make comfortable reading. Until the last three years, there were roughly three fatal attacks a year, but that number has now gone up to 10 or 11. More than half of those attacks are down to XL bullies; of the remainder, many are down to similar breeds.
I was lobbied to suggest, “Saying these dogs are dangerous is like saying red cars are dangerous, because there are a lot of red cars about,” but that does not stack up at all. The best estimate we got from one of the big veterinary groups is that there are around 50,000 of these dogs in the country. Using a simple, back-of-a-cigarette-packet calculation would indicate that, given the number of fatalities that are down to these dogs, they may be 200 or 300 times more dangerous than other dogs. Adding these dogs, as well as pit bulls and three other breeds, to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a sensible way forward. As we heard from the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), that was an effective piece of legislation.
We are also told by a number of people that these dogs are hard to define—it is down to a characteristic, rather than a particular breed. However, interestingly, when the Committee went to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and saw a litter of puppies, staff told us, “These are American XL bully puppies”—there was no doubt in their mind what this breed was. Indeed, when I looked this afternoon at a website where dogs are advertised, there were 458 dogs described as American XLs. In many cases, the parents and grandparents of these dogs were shown in photographs, and they were also described as XL bullies. I can understand why people may try to argue that their dogs are not of this breed, but the veterinary profession and people training these dogs actually understand fairly well what they are.
When I looked at this issue at the time of our inquiry, it was interesting that these dogs were trading at anywhere between £800 and £1,500. Now they can be picked up for £200 or are, indeed, “Free to a good home.” The concern about them being dumped on the roadside really has some bearing. There were also some interesting descriptions in some of the advertisements. One described the dog, saying:
“Fine with kids but does get excited quickly.”
It chilled my heart to think what might happen. Another said:
“Not fond of other dogs”—
and that was a person trying to describe the dog in a positive way in an effort to find a market.
It is right that we recognise the concerns of owners of other breeds, which may get lumped into the same category as these dogs. I spoke today with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who has a constituent with an Old Tyme bulldog, and there is a concern that it could fall into this category. It is important that we make sure not only that these dogs are registered but that people with other breeds have some reassurance that their breeds will not fall into this category. I hope the Minister will give us some reassurance.
Why do people have these dogs? We are told they can be good family pets but, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, if somebody wants to be big and tough, they have one of these dogs. I have heard it said that someone who carries a knife on the street will be arrested and searched by the police, but they can walk around with one of these dogs with impunity, and it can be used to intimidate other people. I saw a report in the paper—I will not refer to the specific case—where a dog was used in an attack, and the police have laid a murder charge. On the “Jeremy Vine” show, a breeder of these dogs specifically said he bred them to sell to drug dealers. That might have been a bit of bravado but, even so, it does indicate the sort of people—in some cases—who buy these dogs.
My view is quite clear: these dogs are not a suitable family pet. They are a ticking time bomb. If my grandchildren—I have got to that age now—were going to play at a friend’s house where they had one of these dogs, I would forbid it. I also feel concerned about the safety of people in the home: we can muzzle these dogs and have them under control outside, but I am concerned that, in the family home, where some of these attacks have happened, children and other people may be at risk.
We have had reference to rehoming. My understanding is that most of the dog charities are not rehoming these dogs any more, because of the reputational risk—there was a case where a dog that had been rehomed was involved in an incident.
It is important that people who have these dogs and who comply with the law also take sensible precautions. If I was walking a dog and saw one of these dogs coming the other way, I would want to cross the road. Many of these attacks start off as an attack on a dog, but when a person tries to save their dog, it turns into an attack on the individual. I am particularly concerned about visitors to homes and communication workers, such as postmen, who are subject to dog attacks. Dog owners do not seem to take simple precautions, such as putting a cage on the back of the door, so that when people insert their fingers to deliver leaflets—as we often do as politicians—that is not a risk, or putting a postbox on the wall outside a property if there is one of these dogs there.
Many people are getting third-party insurance—if they join the Dogs Trust, they get automatic third-party insurance. One problem I hope the Minister will look at is whether it will remain possible to get third-party insurance for these dogs if we have further attacks and big claims on insurance policies because a person is severely injured or worse.
Ultimately, this debate is about the value of human life versus the value of canine life, and I think the Government have got the balance right: we must protect human life. If people feel that they cannot keep these dogs and that the restrictions are too onerous, there are lots of dogs in places such as Battersea and the Dogs Trust that do need rehoming, because the boom in dog ownership that we had during the pandemic is turning into a boom in rehoming.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I came to the debate to find out more about the issue and to give voice to my constituent Helen. She is caught by what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) described as the imprecision of the rules on what actually constitutes a dog of this dangerous categorisation. The Minister is as kindly, compassionate and open to reason as any former Chief Government Whip could be, so I presume on the time of the Chamber only to quote a few extracts from a quite convincing letter from my constituent.
Of course, dangerous dogs legislation has a bit of a history. I was not yet a Member of Parliament when the original legislation was passed. However, I think I am correct that it became a bit of a byword for legislation introduced in a hurry on an issue that turned out to be rather more complex than initially seemed to be the case, and I fear that the same may be true of the present update to the Act. It is therefore with reluctance that I say that we of course all agree that the safety of human beings must come first, but if we propose to inflict severe restrictions on pet owners, we must at least be unambiguous in what we do.
Let me turn to what Helen wrote to me:
“I do not have an ‘XL bully’. My dog is, by DNA testing, an American Bulldog X Neapolitan Mastiff mix, with multiple breeds mixed on the mastiff side. In other words, I have your basic mutt, or ‘Heinz 57’ dog. He will be 11 in April and I have had him since he was 9 weeks old. He has never shown an ounce of aggression towards any humans, including at the vets during some incredibly negative procedures, none of which the vets have ever felt he needed to be muzzled for, including when he had to have a stent placed into his ear when he damaged a blood vessel”—
a procedure she says he had done, “without pain relief!” She continues:
“So you can imagine my shock, my horror, at learning that the ridiculously vague ‘breed definition’ of the XL bully, very hastily and incredibly poorly formed by the Government ‘experts’, somehow seems to have incorporated every and any large muscular looking dog in the UK, potentially including my beloved boy.”
She says that according to the EFRA Committee discussion, the XL bully came to the UK in 2014, but her dog was born the year before, so she finds it hard to believe that he could so be categorised. She says:
“With such vague descriptors as ‘gives the impression of great power for size’, ‘blocky head’ and ‘neck is medium in length’, and the equally vague descriptor that the dog must meet ‘a substantial number of the characteristics’, I have no idea if he would fit ‘type’, and seemingly all that matters is what everybody else thinks!”
She then goes on to say, “Of course, you could recommend my taking a ‘precautionary approach’” and register him anyway, because it would just mean that he would have to be on a lead and muzzled in order to comply. However, apart from this costing her dog its freedom, which she feels is wholly undeserved, she says there is much more in the way of consequences than might be expected.
For example, she says that the health insurance, which she has had for the dog ever since she brought him home, would be lost to her. Without health insurance, it would have cost her more than £3,500 for a procedure that her dog had to undergo, but it actually cost her £800 with the insurance. She says that in the midst of a cost of living crisis, she now has to decide whether to register her dog as an XL bully when she does not believe that he is one at all,
“completely and pointlessly removing his freedom and drastically restricting his life, plus lose the financial backing that I have had his entire life just at the time when he will need it most…or I don’t register him as I don’t believe he is one and wait to see if someone else disagrees, reports me, and I wind up having him forcibly seized, taken away (at a point when I don’t know how much longer he has left with me) and, to top it off, become a criminal, when, as a middle-class, middle manager who has never been out of work I’ve had nothing more than a speeding ticket in my whole life.”
In this individual case, Helen is saying—very much in concert with many of the contributions we have heard so far—that this is a blanket approach insufficiently focused on the actual circumstances under which people should be deprived of their dogs. I agree that we need legislation, and that human life must come first, but I do not agree that the statutory instrument, as it stands, cannot be improved. I am therefore, not for the first time, throwing myself on the mercy of this particular Minister; I look to him to give us, when he comes to wind up, an undertaking that the Government, rather than rushing ahead in a blinkered way, will have another look at the formulation that they have come up with to see whether people like Helen, who by no stretch of the imagination pose a danger to the public with their beloved pets, cannot be excluded from a blunderbuss approach, when a rapier is the weapon we ought to employ in dealing with a very real problem.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I declare my professional and personal interest in this matter: I am a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
I fully understand the passion and emotion on both sides of this very important debate, but I have sadly come to the conclusion that the Government are doing the right thing in banning the American XL bully dog. We have heard accounts of recent attacks, and some of us have seen videos; we need to act swiftly. This has been a difficult decision, but the Prime Minister has called for a ban and the Leader of the Opposition has supported him, so the ban is coming and as legislators we need to ensure we get it right. As a veterinary surgeon and MP, I believe we can get it right, but we need to work with all stakeholders.
This is not a party political issue. How we think about human and animal welfare unites us in humanity across the House. We need to protect people and other animals. The ban is coming, and we need to make it work practically, sensitively and compassionately. As we have heard, we also need a longer-term piece of work in parallel to reform the legislation and look closely at responsible dog ownership.
The 1991 Act covers four types of dogs—the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo argentino and the fila braziliero—and the American XL bully will be an important addition to that list. I am aware that many XL bullies are friendly pets in the right homes and with the right ownership, but sadly, because of their sheer size and weight, they can become uniquely dangerous. They are hugely powerful dogs, with a hugely powerful, muscular jaw structure, and they can weigh more than 50 kg or 60 kg.
We have heard public statements from consultant human surgeons about the severity of the wounds that these dogs can cause. The bites cause crushing or tearing injuries that are worse than the wounds from other types of dog bites; the statements back that up. The implications of being bitten or attacked by that type of dog, compared with a dog such as a French bulldog or a Jack Russell, are orders of magnitude worse.
Some of these dogs are bred for exaggerated conformation and extreme conformational features, and some have had their ears horrifically cropped. The breeding of these animals has been fuelled by the uptick in unregulated canine fertility clinics, which are not supervised by veterinary surgeons although acts of veterinary surgery, such as blood sampling and artificial insemination, take place in them. The EFRA Committee has looked at that issue closely in our “Pet welfare and abuse” inquiry, and we will be making recommendations about that. Unscrupulous breeders are fuelling the trade in these dogs, some of which are used as status symbols—I emphasise again that it is not all XL bullies, but it is a significant number.
Ear cropping is not clinically indicated in the dog; it is a cosmetic procedure that is illegal in this country, although there are loopholes that mean that the dogs can be imported. I am pleased that in this parliamentary Session the Government will introduce legislation to ban the importation of ear-cropped dogs, because that loophole means that some dogs are being illegally cropped horrifically—potentially in people’s back gardens because kits can be bought online. The procedure does not benefit the animal but it makes it look more intimidating.
Popular culture also has a role to play. Look at some of the really popular animated films: some of the dogs in “Up”, one of my favourite films that I have watched with my kids, were cropped; and one of the lead characters in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” from a couple of years ago had his ears cropped. People going to the cinema and seeing dogs with their ears cropped normalises the practice in society. People think, “Well, that’s normal” and “That’s what dogs should look like,” when actually the procedure is horrific and should be outlawed completely.
As we have heard, there is complexity in typing and defining. The Government have engaged closely with police, veterinary and animal welfare experts, and local authorities to produce guidance and advice, but I stress that this is an evolving, iterative process, and I urge the Government and stakeholders to continue to work together to stay around the table so that other types of dog are not inadvertently caught up in this ban.
I firmly believe that we need to be very careful about some of the language we use in this debate. We should not be talking about mass culls or killing of animals. Very early on, when this debate came to a head in September, the chief veterinary officer, Christine Middlemiss, spoke of this ban dovetailing with the humane and sensitive managing of the existing population of XL bully dogs. I stress that if these dogs are safe and responsibly owned, people can keep them. They can register them as long as they are neutered, insured, and kept on a lead and muzzled in public.
I urge the Government and local authorities to work with and support all the animal welfare charities. We have heard about the stresses and strains on the animal welfare sector. It was already under significant pressure, and the pandemic put it under much more. I also urge the Government to continue to work closely with the veterinary sector and look at expert opinion, such as that articulated by the British Veterinary Association last week in its letter to the chief vet, which talked about elements like neutering. I think the Government will get the veterinary profession to come along with them by having some flexibility and potentially extending the neutering deadlines, under which many of the dogs will be neutered when they are under 18 months—the age recommended for heavy types of dog. Extending the deadline until the end of June 2025 for dogs of this type that are under seven months at the end of January 2024 could help. It could benefit health and welfare, as there have been studies suggesting that neutering some of these heavy-type dogs too early can lead to an increased risk of developmental orthopaedic disease and some other medical conditions. It is important to try to work closely with the veterinary profession; working collectively will help.
That brings me on to some of the mental health implications of what we are talking about today: for the owners of these animals, the general public at large, the veterinary profession, and the animal welfare sector, which are taking some of the hit on this. We looked very closely at some of these issues in our EFRA Committee inquiry on pet welfare and abuse and in our rural mental health report, which we published this year. Many charities and veterinary professionals will become involved in euthanasia in cases where the dogs cannot be kept. We need to be cognisant of what that means for the veterinary profession, for the paraprofessionals and professionals working in it, and for the animal welfare sector, which works with them.
I have spoken with many in the sector. As has been mentioned, a couple of weeks ago I spoke at the London Vet Show, where I heard significant disquiet and distress among some vets and practices. I firmly believe that if we take that on board, work collectively and responsibly with the sector to see whether we can evolve some points such as the neutering guidelines, and think about the capacity issues with regard to euthanasia, that will help us to get a more practical and sensible ban moving forward. Responding to some of those concerns will get more vets on board. Vets do not like doing things to animals if they do not think there is a clinical benefit for those animals, so some movement would help—the neutering extension would be only six months. From December, it will be illegal to breed from these animals. We want to get the existing dogs neutered so that no more of these dogs come into being, but having a little bit of flexibility in working with vets may help.
Equally, I have spoken to some vets who agree that we need to go ahead with this. There are views very much on both sides of the debate. We need to work together to get through this—it is not an easy thing to do. I do not believe that it is a politically expedient issue: the Government and, now, the Leader of the Opposition have backed it. It is a tough thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.
Some vets and charities will disagree with my view. People talk about judging the animal by the deed and not the breed. As far as I am concerned, once that deed is committed, it is too late: that child or adult is maimed, or worse. We therefore need to look at this in the round and think about the deed and/or the breed. In the short term, however, adding this type of dog to the list is the right thing to do.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I will be grateful for his expertise on this question. Currently, there are no legal ramifications for a dog that attacks another dog. Are there any precedents for introducing such legislation or for starting to collect data on whether that is predictable; and, in his professional opinion, is a dog that attacks another dog predisposed to attack further dogs or even humans?
Dr Hudson
My fellow clinical colleague—in a different profession—makes a strong point. During the Select Committee inquiry, we found that there is a paucity of data on this. We have certainly seen an uptick in attacks on people, but there is a lack of data on dog-on-dog attacks. Part of this legislation is very much about keeping people safe, but part of it is about keeping other animals safe. The more data we can get in order to make evidence-based decisions, the more it will help.
As other Members have mentioned, a longer piece of work needs to be done in parallel with this short-term legislation. We need to look at responsible breeding, responsible dog ownership, responsible training and responsible socialising of those animals, and we need to tackle some of the issues that have been raised, such as the iniquitous existence of puppy farms and unscrupulous breeders.
We also need to tackle puppy smuggling, and again I am grateful to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has been supporting—as the Minister will be doing—private Members’ Bills to take elements of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill through the House in order to tackle some of the issues and ultimately to help us to improve animal welfare.
The longer-term changes to address the people who are working with these dogs will not happen overnight. That is why the Government are right to carry on with the short-term ban while the longer piece of work is done. We need to make people better at looking after their dogs, but, in the meantime, we need to keep people safe from this particular type of dog.
Wayne David
The hon. Member is making a very good case, but does he recognise the danger that, by putting the focus on this one piece of legislation and by talking generally of other issues in the future, the impression will be given that one statutory instrument will be sufficient to tackle the problem? Is there not a danger that people will come to believe that, even though we know it not to be the case?
Dr Hudson
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. He also made the point earlier that once we ban this type of dog, people will look to find another type of dog. I acknowledge that some unscrupulous breeders will try to develop the next status-symbol type of dog, but that should not stop us from trying to stop such attacks on people and animals. This legislation is not perfect, but what we have seen in recent times means that something needs to be done now—in addition to a holistic piece of work to address some of the issues that he has rightly raised.
I fully recognise that this is very difficult for many owners. It is very difficult for the animal welfare charities and the veterinary sector as well.
Ian Lavery
As a vet, is the hon. Member not bound by some sort of oath? Vets should not be putting down any animals that are fit and healthy, when there is no reason whatsoever to put them down. He has said he feels that it is necessary. What is his personal view?
Dr Hudson
I have raised many points about vets being uncomfortable with doing some of this. A lot of veterinary practices and companies have surveyed their staff and will not force vets to do things they do not want to do. That said, I come back to the point that if some of these dogs are safe, they can be kept. As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), it is not feasible for rehoming centres to rehome dogs that are not eligible and put them into an environment where they could hurt someone. Sometimes we need to make professional and clinical judgments.
Sadly, some of these dogs will have to be put down, but I come back to the language that we need to be using. This is not some form of mass cull; actually, we are keeping dogs safe. If dogs are not deemed to be safe and cannot be registered, we must try to keep people and other animals safe. I recognise the difficulties on both sides, but I believe that the spate of attacks we have seen in recent months means that the Government and Parliament are right to act, but we have to get it right. We have to do it practically, sensitively and compassionately to protect people and other animals.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline, and to speak in this emotive and hotly contested debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on his opening speech and on introducing the debate. I was appalled to hear that Emma—the courageous mother of 10-year-old Jack, who was sadly killed—has been issued with death threats. That is completely appalling. I was very saddened to hear that, and I pay tribute to her for her courage and for making a contribution to the debate after suffering such a horrendous loss.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I feel that it is my duty to speak on behalf of a number of law-abiding constituents who have emailed about this issue—people who would never dream that they could become criminals or be on the other side of the law. It is important that their voices are heard, so I will talk about some of the emails I have received from such individuals.
Marie Angell emailed me to say that she has owned two American bulldogs—a father and a son—since birth. One is seven and the other is three, and they are not just pets; they are members of the family, and she truly loves them both. They have been good animals, and her little boy has grown up with them. They both provide emotional support to the family. She and her parents have suffered from mental health issues in the past and have at times been homeless. Over the years, their dogs have been the only things that got them through hard times. Having finally secured permanent accommodation and settled down, news of the potential ban has had a devastating impact on the mental health of Marie and her family. She cannot sleep or eat and keeps breaking down, as she is so scared about what might happen to her beloved animals. These are important voices, which are sometimes being missed in the debate. The dogs are not just animals; they are actually members of the family, and to lose them will be heartbreaking.
Another constituent of mine, Rumi, talked to me about the special creature that has transformed his life. It is not just a dog; it is the child of his family and a source of endless joy and unconditional love—an incredible companion that understands his joys and sorrows and is always there to provide comfort when needed. The email I received from him is very emotional. I feel that it is part of my duty to speak on behalf of law-abiding people who cannot fathom the idea that they could become criminals. They have been experiencing immense stress and depression as a result of the proposed ban, and they have asked me to raise their cases in today’s debate.
Another constituent of mine, Dimitar, talked about the loss and despair he has experienced over the past months. He is without a family and is here in the UK on his own. His mother died 16 months ago, and his father passed away shortly thereafter. Dimitar is suffering from immense grief and loneliness, and he feels that the only thing that has got him through this difficult time is the friendship and unconditional love that he has had from his dog. The prospect of losing that animal is immensely overpowering.
Another constituent of mine, Cathy Bibby—a grandmother of six, a law-abiding citizen, a homeowner, and one who has worked all her life—cannot countenance the fact that she could become a criminal for owning two American bullies; she feels that she is being treated like a criminal just for her choice of dogs. These dogs are not just the life of her, but the life of her family. She cannot countenance the fact that she could possibly be made a criminal. She said to me in her email that this has been incredibly tough to come to terms with and that her mental health is suffering.
Laura Creed, who led the campaign in Peterborough, is a decent and upstanding member of the community. I know she does not have a bad bone in her body, but she too has been made to feel that she could become a criminal. She has had her girl—a dog called Lady—for over 15 years. Lady is a rescue dog, who had suffered abuse. Lady has been kicked and abused but she has a gentle nature, and Laura cannot possibly think of losing her. We do not know how long they have left with Lady. She is not an XL bully, by the way, but she may fall under the characteristics set out in the legislation. The idea that Laura could lose Lady is just heartbreaking to her. At the end of the email, Laura says that there must be another way.
That is what I wanted to raise in this debate. Those are important voices. In my mind, these people—law-abiding, responsible dog owners—do not present a danger to the public. There has to be a way other than, effectively, giving people the choice of losing these dogs, placing further restrictions on the ownership of these dogs, or making these owners criminals. There are good intentions behind what is being proposed. No one can hear about the tragic incidents and deaths that have occurred and not want to act. The intentions are good, but are we to pass bad legislation as a result of those good intentions?
That is all I really wanted to say in the debate today. I urge the Minister to think and to listen to the voices of those law-abiding citizens—people who have never been in trouble with the law at any point in their life. Are we not doing something that, in a few years, we will look back on and regret?
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for so ably leading today’s Petitions Committee debate. In my constituency of Southend West, 192 of my constituents signed the first e-petition, 642876, and a further 693 signed the e-petition ending in 611.
[Mr James Gray in the Chair]
It is that first petition that I particularly want to speak about today. Specifically, I want to speak about the need for early intervention to prevent dog bites and other dog-related issues. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am going to focus on dog-on-dog attacks.
Recent estimates show that there are some 13 million dogs in the UK; we are literally a nation of dog lovers, with nearly half of all households owning a dog. We all know that dogs are not just pets; they are much loved members of the family and true companions. That was very much the case with a much loved bichon frisé called Millie, who was the constant companion of one of my constituents, Michael. The Minister knows that Millie was viciously attacked in Chalkwell Park in Southend-on-Sea. It is really as a result of that vicious dog-on-dog attack that I wished to speak today.
Most dog owners are responsible, but there must be consequences for the small minority who are not. It is clear to me that normally it is not the dogs that are the problem—although there may well be a legitimate need to single out the XL bully dog. Most dogs in themselves are not a problem, but dogs have owners, and every dog owner has a responsibility to ensure that their dog does not fatally attack another dog; they certainly have a responsibility to ensure that their dog does not attack a human being, let alone fatally attack someone. A growing cohort of evidence suggests that if we tackle dog-on-dog aggression and attacks, we might well prevent dogs from going on to attack other animals, adults or even children.
In recent years, laws both civil and criminal have been strengthened to protect the public when a dog poses a risk to public safety, whether in a public or a private place. It remains the case, however, under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act, that a dog owner is not liable to any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally attacks or seriously injures another dog, unless that dog is a guide, assistance or service dog, unless their dog bites a human in the course of the attack, or unless—to quote guidance—there is “reasonable apprehension” that the dog will injure a person. That is not always the case, and certainly not when a larger dog, such as a boxer-type or XL bully dog, makes a beeline for a much smaller dog. That is exactly what happened in the case of my constituent.
In the previous Session, I had the privilege of promoting a ten-minute rule Bill that would have required a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their dog did not fatally injure another dog—in other words, early intervention. It was called Emilie’s law. Sadly, the Bill fell when the House was prorogued, but that loophole still needs to be plugged. I have been inundated by emails from people all over the country expressing concerns about dangerous dogs attacking their dogs. I urge the Government to initiate an immediate review of existing legislation on dog attacks, with a view to amending the law to afford pet dogs the same protections that exist already under the law for service, guide and therapy dogs.
In preparation for my ten-minute rule Bill, I submitted freedom of information requests to all 43 police forces in the UK to ask if they record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate offence, and if they do, how many they had recorded over the past five years. I was shocked that only 14 police forces record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate incident and that, in those 14 areas, the number of dog-on-dog attacks has increased exponentially. In 2016, the 14 police forces reported and recorded 1,700 dog-on-dog attacks; in 2021, five years later, those same forces recorded 11,559 attacks. That is a 700% increase, with a shocking 2,264 attacks in London alone. I intend to resubmit those freedom of information requests, because I suspect that with all the media coverage of such incidents, the number will have increased still further.
I urge the Government to take notice of some of these terrible stories, in particular those of Millie and Michael in my constituency, because of the long-standing mental-health issues that such attacks cause. Even though it is now nearly two years ago since Millie was savagely attacked by an off-the-lead, out-of-control dog while on a walk on the lead in a rose garden in Chalkwell Park, Michael is still deeply affected by the attack. He still comes to see me and is very upset that Emilie’s law has fallen.
That is not atypical. Such attacks, when people irresponsibly allow their dogs to become dangerous and to attack other people’s dogs, have a lasting impact. It is the responsibility of owners to take necessary steps to ensure that we do not have such horrendous, unnecessary attacks. Millie was pretty much torn apart in front of Michael’s eyes. He had to carry her, bleeding and with serious open wounds to her abdomen, to the nearest vet to be euthanised. He had no recourse whatever, because he did not feel that he himself was at risk. It was obvious the dog was going for Millie; he did not feel under any reasonable apprehension of injury. The test is worded as an objective test, but it is interpreted by police forces as a subjective test, and that is the essence of the problem.
Part of my Bill would have required all police forces to record incidents where a dog has attacked another dog. Recording such incidents remains hugely important, because until we have the full picture and can assess the true impact of dog-on-dog attacks, we cannot take the next step of predicting whether attacking another dog is the first step towards attacking a human, including children, or another pet.
Protect Our Pets, which is a large Facebook campaign group, advises me that dog-on-dog attacks are nearly always the precursor to an attack on a human or another pet, so reporting in this area will allow for early intervention. Hopefully, it will also allow us to prevent some of these awful attacks, some of which are fatal. I urge the Government once again to look closely at the provisions of Emilie’s law and to work with me to make sure that we have all the necessary measures in place to prevent dog-on-dog attacks, so that people like Michael do not have to suffer the unnecessary loss of their beloved pets.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship and to participate in this excellent debate.
What concerns me is that 600,000-plus people have signed the main petition that we are debating today, and on 31 October the Government laid a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, so unless the Government agree to a debate under that negative procedure, this will be the last opportunity for Members of this House to express an opinion on this sensitive subject.
To try to prompt the Government into holding a debate, I have today tabled an early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument. It asks:
“That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1164), dated 31 October 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October 2023, be annulled.”
When my right hon. Friend the Minister responds to this debate, if he does not agree to withdraw the order and think again in the light of this debate, I hope that he will allow a debate on this very sensitive statutory instrument. We are a lawmaking body and at the moment we have a statutory instrument that has been laid and that will come into force automatically, the drafting of which leaves much to be desired, not least because it does not have any clear or precise definition of what an XL bully dog is and a requirement under the 1991 Act is that there should be such a definition in any subsidiary legislation.
This whole debate takes me back to 1991 and the circumstances in which the dangerous dogs legislation was introduced. I was a junior Minister at that time and I owned a rottweiler, which frequently used to come into the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, in the days when there was no ban on dogs, of whatever breed, coming into the Palace. My wife, who worked for me then and continues to work for me, and I used to look after this rottweiler within the precincts of this House when we were here working.
In 1991, the late Dame Angela Rumbold was charged as a Home Office Minister to make an urgent reaction to public concern being expressed about dog attacks on children, largely by rottweilers, that were being reported in the press. It became apparent that a distorted picture of the pattern of dog attacks and the dog breeds responsible for those attacks was emerging. I think there are 22,000 incidents of dogs biting humans every year, and if the dog concerned in an incident was of a particular breed that was under focus at that time, then that resulted in a report in the newspapers, which would not happen otherwise.
As a result of pressure put on the Minister from within Government by the late Alan Clark—he was the only other member of the House who had a rottweiler and he was also a Minister at the time—and I, we were able to persuade Dame Angela that, as she could see from our rottweilers, they were not inherently dangerous dogs that should be banned and whose owners should be effectively criminalised if they did not take action. I remind the House of that.
What happened after that? In the context of that debate, Alastair Campbell—when he was running the Daily Mirror—thought it would make a very good story, because he found out that I had rottweiler, to show me going out with my rottweiler and walking on Southampton common, and thereby endangering everybody else on the common. He paid for one of his junior staff to camp outside my house in Southampton—I was then representing Southampton, Itchen—to try and see me, or somebody else, going out on to Southampton common with our rottweiler so that he could take a picture of it. He failed to do that because we were alert to the risk, but that did not stop him putting an article in the Daily Mirror referring to me and describing my rottweiler as a “Minister’s devil dog”, with a picture of our dear rottie.
That was the emotion at the time, and it was being played up by what was then Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I think that contributed to the Government rushing into what was essentially emergency legislation. I fear that, with the Prime Minister’s announcement and the announcements that have followed, the current Government are similarly being pushed into doing something perhaps against their better judgment, in a rush, and without thinking it through properly.
Particularly, if we are going to ban a particular type or breed of dog, then we need a robust definition. We cannot leave it to individual owners to decide for themselves whether their dog complies with the new definitions. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), said that there are people whose XL bullies fit that: their parents were registered as XL bullies, and so on. That is fine, but what we are discussing today is a situation where a lot of dogs, which were never bought or officially described as XL bullies, may well be caught by this legislation because it is so vaguely drafted. To then have guidance that says, “If you think that you may be in this category, then you should self-police and report yourself to the authorities, because you think you may have what is described as an XL bully-type”—that is just not the way in which we should be legislating in this House.
I also fear that this debate is undermined by the lack of data. There is no hard data on how many dog bites, resulting in either fatality or serious injury, in this country have come from different breeds of dog. I used that great resource, the internet, and came across a website, askadamskutner.com, that gives us these statistics for what happens in America. The most recent statistics by breed for dog bite-related fatalities included the following: pit bulls, 284 deaths; rottweilers, 45 deaths; German shepherds, 20 deaths; mixed breeds, 17 deaths; American bully dogs, 15 deaths; mastiffs, 14 deaths; and Siberian huskies, 13 deaths—the list goes on. After those statistics, however, the major finding is that Adam Kutner believes that irresponsible ownership to be responsible for most of these dog bite-related fatalities.
Sir Robert Goodwill
We have statistics in the UK showing that 12 of the last 23 deaths were from American XLs. Other breeds are not blameless. In fact, on 8 August, a 77-year-old gentleman, Mr Vic Franklin, was bitten by two rottweilers and had to have an arm, leg and part of a finger amputated following the attack. There are other breeds, but they do not feature disproportionately in the statistics.
Sir Christopher Chope
The problem is that the statistics are of a moment. My right hon. Friend is talking about the statistics over recent months, but if one looks back at statistics since 1991, they might be able to show that there have been a number of rottweiler attacks, and rottweilers were exempt from the dangerous dogs legislation in the circumstances that I have described. We are now picking on a particular breed—and not even a precise definition of that breed—instead of doing what all informed opinion has been asking for, which is to look back at the legislation itself and legislate against those who have allowed their dogs, of whatever breed, to get out of control and attack other dogs or humans.
It is telling that about a year ago, in response to a petition asking for the Government to review the dangerous dogs legislation, the Government set up a review because they recognised that there might be a problem with the current legislation. However, as soon as there were a few headlines about XL bullies, in what I think was a knee-jerk reaction, the Prime Minister decided, “I must take action on this and so I must announce a ban.” That ban comes into effect on 31 December, with, as I have described, the legislation laid and no opportunity whatsoever for the Government or Parliament to consider the detail of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said that we need to continue to look at these issues and ensure that there is an iterative process. There is no iterative process now. The statutory instrument has been laid and will come into law on 31 December, unless or until this House forces the Government to bring forward a motion so we can then vote it down, or the Government themselves decide to withdraw it and think again.
We are talking about desperate measures, imposed in an autocratic style over a short space of time, with challenging consequences for our constituents up and down the country. Members on both sides of the House have referred to individual constituents who have written to them. A number of mine have written to me in very persuasive and emotional letters and emails explaining why their particular dog should not have to be muzzled, or ultimately even euthanised, as a result of this legislation, which they think is totally disproportionate.
One particular person who wrote to me is the owner of a mastiff cross, which he and his wife believe may satisfy the definition of an XL bully as contained in the guidance issued by the Government. Why should somebody with a mastiff cross find their dog defined as an XL bully type when it is not? It just happens to be a large and thickset dog. That family took the dog from a rescue centre about five years ago following a family disaster, and it has been their way out of a difficult, mentally stressful situation. Given that they may find that their dog will no longer have the freedom to walk through the New Forest, on beaches, or in the hills of Dartmoor as a normal dog would, one can understand how upset they are. The dog, who is called Ronnie, is not an XL bully but could be classed as one under this vague and imprecise legislation.
My daughter was born in 1990, and when she was one— at the time of the Dangerous Dogs Act—she was living with our rottweiler. I think that was another factor that Angela Rumbold took into account, because here was a rottweiler—a so-called dangerous dog—living a perfectly quiet existence in the same household as one of Her Majesty’s Ministers.
I do not know whether it was because of the legislation, but my daughter ultimately became a member of the esteemed veterinary profession. She is now part of the cohort of experts who are saying, “This is not the right way forward.” They have said that the Government’s legislation is completely the wrong way to go about it, so why are the Government not listening? It is perhaps—dare one say it?—the arrogance of having too large a majority, or deference to the Prime Minister, who decreed that this will happen on the basis of little evidence at the time. In scrambling to get the evidence together, Ministers perhaps feel that they have to deliver on the Prime Minister’s will, rather than stand up to him and say, “Hang on a minute. I think your knee-jerk reaction was wrong.”
The people concerned about the ban, including vets, are in the Dog Control Coalition, which is made up of the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. They say:
“The Dog Control Coalition agrees that urgent action needs to be taken to protect the public from out-of-control dogs”—
not specific breeds—
“but we are disappointed that the Government hasn’t taken the opportunity to completely overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act. With its continued focus on specific breeds, rather than a focus on prevention and implementation of tougher penalties for those owners not in control of their dogs, it is not fit for purpose.”
Those organisations say that this legislation is not fit for purpose, and yet the Government—unless we hear something to the contrary from the Minister—will not even allow the House to have a vote on it so that Members can be held to account by their constituents and express whether they think it is good legislation or not.
Even if the intention of the legislation is good, surely we should look at the detail, because we are talking about new criminal penalties that will affect people’s freedom. Do we want to criminalise owning or handling dogs of a description so vague that people will not be certain in advance whether they will be offending by not registering their dog as being an XL bully type?
In my view, this is one of the worst pieces of legislation brought forward by this Government—that is quite a high bar to get over, given what has happened since the 2019 general election. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) introduced the debate in such a mild, rational way that he would single-handedly persuade the Government to think again. My style is perhaps slightly different from his, but I hope that between us we will be able to persuade the Government and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, because nothing can be changed unless he says so, to change their view and listen to the voices of the 600,000-plus people who signed the petitions.
Mr Gray, you and I know how difficult it is to get people to sign petitions, so to get 600,000 signatures is no mean feat. We ignore that mass of opinion at our peril, unless we are able to show that we have done everything possible to examine alternative ways of dealing with this problem and introduced proper safeguards in terms of definitions. Ultimately, we must recognise the plea that has been there ever since the 1991 legislation that we should not legislate in haste, but should actually deal with the underlying problem. That problem is just as bad as it has ever been, which is that there is a significant number of dog owners who are irresponsible.
Some people have talked about having a licensing system for dogs. Perhaps we should have a licensing system for dog owners in the same way that we have one for car drivers. Why not have a licensing system for dog owners? I put that forward as a proposition. I do not normally campaign in favour of more legislation and regulation, but I put that forward as a reasonable alternative to the rotten legislation we have here.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I thank all everyone who added their names to the petitions and thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for leading the debate today. We have heard passionate and emotive contributions from across the House, and those present will know that this matter has caused genuine concern across all quarters of civic society, with strong feelings on all sides. Those who think the breed should be banned, those who do not, animal lovers, academics, animal charities and welfare groups, and many more stakeholders have all had their say on the proposed ban.
The proposal comes in the wake of what has been an undeniable spate of attacks on other animals and people. Of course, we all share the horror of any dog attack, especially with higher numbers of reported cases of XL bully-related incidents. Some of those reports, as we have heard, have been truly horrific and have resulted in fatalities. As outlined by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), our Committee has heard hours of oral evidence and read hundreds of pages on the matter, as well as receiving many constituent inquiries. It is apparent that the rushed nature of the ban has only exacerbated public concern. The Dangerous Dogs Act is, in the view of many, a flawed piece of legislation, and adding the XL bully to it in this rushed fashion has caused concern for many stakeholders and interested parties.
The Scottish Government have fully and carefully considered the UK Government’s decision to ban XL bully dogs and whether similar changes to ban the breed will be applied in Scotland. Having listened to the advice given by advisers—experts in the field, of course—it has been made clear by the Scottish Government Minister in a recent letter to Lord Benyon that the ban will not be brought into force in Scotland on the current timescale the UK Government have implemented. The Scottish Government keep all dog control legislation under constant and consistent review, including the banned breeds list, and will continue to do so going forward.
The focus in Scotland for some considerable time has been on dog control policy. Supported by the Scottish SPCA, the view is that responsible dog ownership, whatever the breed, is the key to safer communities. However, if the long-standing list of banned breeds can have a role to play in keeping communities safe, the Scottish Government will of course consider that, using the evidence of what may work without having any unintended consequences. It is those unintended consequences, such as mistyping a dog, that could see innocent, well-trained, well-looked-after and much-loved family pets caught up in the ban as the legislation is rushed through this place.
Defining exactly what breed types should be covered by a ban is the key challenge facing the UK Government. They have set up an expert group on this very subject, which will also help inform decision making in Scotland, and any departure from the current position will be considered fully. Again, those of us who sit on the EFRA Committee will have heard all about the implications of attempting to type a dog and how difficult it is, even for experts. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) raised many valid concerns about typing dogs, and it reminded me of reading a book by the English rugby player Lawrence Dallaglio. His family pet was a Rhodesian ridgeback, which attacked his eight-year-old son way back in 2008. They are big dogs with have excessive weight, and if they lock on, it will lead to the same consequences as what happens when an XL bully-type dog does so, so we have concerns about targeting specific breeds.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that this sort of attack also happens in Scotland? In Motherwell last month, the 18-year-old owner of an XL bully was savagely attacked and needed surgery, and two council officials were also attacked. Pepper spray needed to be used on the dog before it was put down.
Steven Bonnar
Of course I share the concerns. I do not think anybody in this Chamber or, indeed, across the whole House does not share the concerns about irresponsible dog ownership and what can happen, including fatalities, when somebody is not acting responsibly —of course we share those concerns. Motherwell is my local town, by the way, so I am deeply concerned about that incident, but the Scottish Government have carefully considered the evidence-based suggestions from experts to help improve community safety, including keeping the prohibited breed list under constant review. We will continue to engage with all stakeholders on the concept of a ban and how it might be implemented in England and Wales.
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was designed to highlight the responsibilities of dog owners by putting in place a regime that identifies “out of control” dogs at an early juncture and provides measures to change the behaviour of such dogs and their owners before they are deemed dangerous. The UK Government should perhaps look to follow the approach taken by the Scottish Government. We in Scotland have also introduced a national dog control database, which helps independent enforcement agencies, such as local authorities and Police Scotland, to access information on dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control in a public place.
The Scottish Government also carried out a marketing campaign on dog control in conjunction with the Scottish SPCA in 2021. That campaign has since been rerun on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all other available outlets on a number of occasions. It directs the public to information about the law on controlling dogs, which is available at mygov.scot/controlling-your-dog. That website makes it clear that dog owners are responsible for the actions of their dog, and sets out potential penalties for those failing to control dogs. These actions are not reactions to a spate of dog attacks by Dobermanns or rottweilers, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) outlined. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed legislation following a spate of dog attacks, and that is what we are seeing from the UK Government again. This is not consistent. Scotland is not reacting to a spate of dog attacks, and a consistent and continuous body of work has been, and continues to be, undertaken in Scotland that can not only help to react to trends, but actively prevent them.
It is regretful that the Government have brought forward this ban in this manner, without, again, any prior conversation or consultation with the devolved Government. It is also important to emphasise to those concerned that a dog being classed as a banned breed will not automatically mean that the animal will be put down. If conditions are met, such as having a dog neutered or spayed and keeping that dog muzzled in public, a dog could be placed on the new index of exempted dogs.
More generally, it is important to put on record just how much we in the SNP value the work of Police Scotland, Scottish local authorities and the Scottish SPCA, which all work closely with the Scottish Government to help keep our communities safe from the small minority of irresponsible dog owners and their dangerous dogs. The Scottish Government will, of course, continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Government on their intentions for a ban of the XL bully breed, while continuing to lead on several regional engagements to look at ways for partners to work collaboratively to improve the operational response, enforcement and community engagement to promote more responsible dog ownership across our communities. Here at Westminster, we in the SNP will continue to call on the UK Government to return the kept animals Bill to Parliament, to restrict unethical puppy farming and imports from abroad, and to improve our welfare standards for all animals.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. As everyone can see and hear, I am not the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones)—I do not have the same beautiful Welsh accent. My shadow Department colleague is in the Chamber due to a clash of business, so I am speaking for the Opposition today. My hon. Friend sends her good wishes to one and all here, and I know she will read Hansard tomorrow.
I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate on these two important petitions, and for setting a considered and careful tone, which has been continued throughout the debate—my congratulations on that. I also acknowledge all the colleagues who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), whose contributions I always enjoy. He recognised how emotive this issue is and how much these pets mean to so many people, and that although views are different, we cannot base any kind of ban just on what a dog looks like. That point has been echoed throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) shared her upset over the attacks—I am sure we all echo that— and spoke of her concerns about the current legislation not working. An important point was made about the problem of whether the definition we use is too woolly.
I enjoyed some of the comments from Government Members, particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that the Government, with too large a majority, may appear overly arrogant. I promise that the Opposition are doing everything we can to deal with that, one by-election at a time. More seriously, he made an important point about the imprecision of legislation. The expertise of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), as a vet, has really contributed to the debate. It was the first time I have heard of ear cropping and I share his horror at that awful, awful practice.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Despite our various disagreements, she should be commended for coming here, having faced death threats over her stance on this issue, to defend the legislation that she brought forward. I am utterly appalled by any Member of Parliament—anybody—facing death threats for standing up for what they believe. There might be differences of opinion, but surely we are here to debate them all in a calm and considered manner. That, of course, always comes from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who also mentioned the problems around definitions. So thank you, everyone.
Very importantly, I acknowledge and thank all those up and down the country who signed this petition. When I first started drafting these remarks, more than 600,000 people had signed e-petition 624876, and more than 100,000 people had signed the alternative one. I pay tribute to the person who started the petition. It is very important that these issues are debated. It shows that the petition system is working effectively for our democracy. It is healthy that people can use a petition to share their views and that we bring it here to debate it, and I commend every person who signed it. It is important that we take the time to acknowledge the issues that our constituents really care about.
I also note that a number of Members from across the House have a keen interest in this issue and have campaigned and worked on it for many years. I mention especially my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who has been a doughty and loud campaigner. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West is very grateful for his advice, experience and work.
My hon. Friend, the shadow animal welfare Minister, said that
“the Labour party believes in honouring our animal welfare promises, and we will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 135WH.]
We are, as was mentioned, a nation of animal lovers, and pets are part of all our families. That also means that ensuring that dogs are not left or encouraged to become a danger to themselves, their owners, other animals or other people, and it means, as has been mentioned, that owners are responsible and should care for their dogs and treat them in a humane and respectful way.
Like many on this side of the House, I have been deeply concerned by the rise in dog-on-human attacks in recent weeks and months. It is clear that action is needed to improve the Dangerous Dogs Act and for that action to be taken sooner rather than later. The point has come up many times in this debate that we should not look at the Act in isolation, but as part of a wider piece in regard to the legislation, because piecemeal legislation can result in unintended consequences.
It is obvious to us all that dog attacks have increased in number in the 32 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act came into force. Unfortunately, when we talk about the threats posed by dangerous dogs, the facts speak for themselves. From January to July 2020, 7,790 dog attacks occurred across the UK. Just two years later, for the same period, there were 9,834 attacks, which represents a 26% increase. The number of deaths caused by dogs is also very bleak: since 2013, there have been more than five deaths a year, yet last year, 10 people lost their life. I acknowledge the presence today of those who have lost loved ones and who desperately need common sense to win the day. I thank again the hon. Member for Don Valley for mentioning Emma and the death threats and abuse that she has faced. I agree that they are utterly appalling. She has been through enough.
There are a number of reasons why dog attacks have increased recently. It is also the case that dog ownership increased markedly during the covid pandemic. The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals stated that from February 2021 to February 2022, dog ownership figures increased significantly so that—this amazed me when I looked it up—27% of UK adults owned a dog and the UK’s dog population stood at 10.2 million.
Back in 2018, just a short period after my election to this place, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee launched a report that called for a full-scale review of current dog control legislation and policy to ensure that the public were properly protected and animal welfare concerns were effectively addressed. More specifically, the report made 16 recommendations to the Government, the most important of which can be summarised as follows. It called for an end to
“the prohibition on transferring a banned dog if it has been…assessed…and found to be safe.”
It called for a commission to be established to ascertain whether the four banned breeds presented a
“greater risk than any legal breed or cross breed.”
It called for a review of current legislation and policy relating to dogs, and for the development of
“an alternative model that focuses on prevention through education, early intervention, and consistently robust sanctions for offenders”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a progress check on the response to that report and an update. It would also be helpful to know what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales about their approach to this issue, because, as has been mentioned, the legislation covers only England and Wales. It is clear that a joined-up approach to handling this issue will be required and, more specifically, to how we respond across the United Kingdom, not just from an enforcement perspective.
I would like to touch on the first petition, on the American XL bully. As Members across the House will know, Ministers recently announced that they would add the American XL bully to the list of dogs that are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. There are currently four breeds on that list: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa—I am going to say these terribly—the dogo argentino and the fila braziliero. The current approach to dog control in this country is misguided and does not protect people adequately. We in the Opposition believe that safety must be our top priority, but without unnecessarily punishing responsible dog owners or harming dogs that are not necessarily a risk. A common-sense approach is required, and it is for Ministers to make sure that they deliver one.
I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its work on this and on animal welfare more generally. I very much agreed when it said that, in light of recent serious dog-bite incidents, increased enforcement is necessary to improve human safety, and expressed deep concern for anyone impacted by those tragic incidents.
A knee-jerk reaction—calling for the speedy introduction of a ban on a particular breed—is all well and good, but there are wider implications that must be factored in. The Minister will have heard a number of comments regarding rehoming, and I am keen to know what discussions he has had about that. What will be done to make sure that dogs are not put down because they cannot be rehomed? How can we make sure that a ban will not lead to a very sudden and steep increase in abandonment and stray dogs because owners are worried about the cost of complying with the restrictions? As was mentioned at the beginning of the debate, how this is being communicated to current dog owners?
Will the Minister take a moment to address a specific point that has come up a lot? The RSPCA and other campaign groups are right to point out that the definition of XL bully is very broad indeed. I am extremely concerned about the number of healthy, much loved dogs that will unnecessarily be swept up in the ban. The Minister needs to get a grip on that. As he knows, the animal rescue and veterinary sectors are both under considerable strain and pressure following the pandemic and the cost of living crisis, and there are major concerns about costs and an increased number of animals coming into the sectors’ care. What support are we providing to vets to make sure that they are able to assist and respond to the impact of the ban?
There is much to do to get this right from both a public safety perspective and an animal welfare perspective. I urge the Minister to reach out, listen, and engage with campaigners, stakeholders and owners and the valid concerns that have been raised in this debate. Will he set out what meetings he has had with stakeholders and campaigners on this issue? Engagement and communication with the dog and animal welfare sector will be key to getting this right. The Minister needs to go further, do more, and listen harder.
I have already touched on the need for a real root-and-branch unpicking of dog legislation in this country. The year 1991 seems a very long time ago now. It is right to listen, learn, review and improve, and I urge the Minister to do just that. Will he commit to a full and total review of dog control legislation in this country? If he will, when will it happen? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West will be very happy to have an answer in writing if the Minister is not able to answer that specific question or any of the others I have put to him.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am responding on behalf of Lord Benyon, the Minister responsible, who sits in another place.
We have seen the House at its very best today. We have had an informed debate in which a series of Members have wrestled with the challenge the Government faces of keeping people safe in our communities while at the same time making sure we do not affect people’s much loved pets. The debate was informed and enriched, not least by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who added a great deal to the debate with her presence, and by the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who has done a lot of work in this area. I knew when I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) that I was about to be challenged on dog-on-dog attacks, as she is a tenacious campaigner. I know her constituent Michael will be very pleased to see her in her place representing poor old Millie, who suffered terribly in a dog-on-dog attack. I pay tribute to her for the work she does. We have had some great contributions.
We should stop and pause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) did at the start of the debate, to recognise that dog attacks can have horrific consequences. The Government take that very seriously indeed. Sadly, we have seen an increase in serious and fatal dog attacks in recent years. The XL bully breed-type appears to have been disproportionately involved in that rise in attacks. That is why we have taken decisive action to ban the XL bully breed-type, to attempt to keep our communities safe. From 1 February 2024, it will be illegal for someone to be in possession of an XL bully breed-type unless they have a certificate of exemption.
We recognise the strength of feeling on breed-specific legislation, and that some people are opposed to the prohibition of specific breed-types. However, the Government must balance those views with our responsibility to protect public safety. We remain concerned that lifting any restrictions may result in more dog attacks. Therefore, there are no plans to repeal the breed-specific provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Police and local authorities already have a range of powers available to them to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. Those powers range from lower level community protection notices, which require dog owners to take appropriate action to address behaviour, to more serious offences under the 1991 Act, whereby people can be put in prison for up to 14 years or disqualified from ownership, or dangerous dogs can be euthanised. We are working closely with enforcers to make sure that the full force of the law is applied to incidents involving all breeds of dog.
Of course, we know that dog attacks are complex and that there is no single silver bullet. That is why, alongside the ban, we are taking a multi-factoral approach to reducing dog attacks through our responsible dog ownership taskforce. The taskforce is considering the role of education and training for both dogs and their owners, and how we can improve data collection, recording and enforcement practices. We expect the taskforce to make its final recommendations very soon. In the meantime, DEFRA officials have been collaborating with the police and local authorities to deliver sessions to share best practice in preventive dog control enforcement and to encourage multi-agency working. We have been co-ordinating communications—for example, we can co-ordinate communication pushes with key partners, so that families are equipped with practical tips about how to enjoy spending time safely with dogs. This messaging has been widely disseminated to parents, health visitors, school nurses, safeguarding professionals, police forces and local authorities.
More widely, we are actively considering whether action is required to further protect dogs in breeding settings. As part of that work, we are reviewing the regulations for anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs, and we have commissioned a report from the Animal Welfare Committee on the welfare implications of specialised canine reproductive practices.
I hope that colleagues are reassured that the Government are taking this issue very seriously and that this wide-ranging action is necessary to ensure continued public safety. I look forward to discussing the conclusions of the responsible dog ownership taskforce in due course. I wish to put on the record my thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate today.
Sir Christopher Chope
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister facilitate a debate on the statutory instrument, which is obviously of great concern to many Members of Parliament and even more so to our constituents, before it comes into force on 31 December?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course he will be fully aware that it is for parliamentary business managers to arrange such debates, but I will certainly have a conversation with those business managers following this debate. However, I think the House is now more informed, thanks to this debate, and I thank Members from all parties for their constructive contributions to it.
Nick Fletcher
I agree with the Minister that this has been an extremely well informed and well attended debate, which has obviously gone on for quite some time.
There is still work to be done, and concerns remain on both sides of the debate. I encourage all dog owners to be extremely responsible with their pets. When dogs bite, often the first thing that people say is, “Well, it’s never done that before.” Unfortunately with some breeds, even if it has never done it before, the first time can be fatal, and we really have to consider that.
There is a huge amount of interest in this issue. I know we are a dog-loving nation, but I do not want to have to sit in front of a parent who has lost a child, or talk to a father whose daughter has scars on her legs for the rest of her life, because of a dog attack. That is what we need to stop.
A great deal is being done, however, and I am pleased to hear that the Department is doing a lot of work on responsible ownership. I have spoken to many professionals, and whether they agree with the ban or not, they accept that it is going forward; however, they do not want to be in the same place in five or 10 years’ time because we have not done anything about responsible ownership.
We also need a database and we need to enforce the chipping of dogs. We need a register of every bite incident, because one of the concerns about banning the XL bully is that there is no real data on how many bites and fatalities are associated with the dog. If we have a database and this happens with another dog in five or 10 years’ time, we can turn around to the public and say, “Look, we’ve really got the facts.”
I thank everybody who has contributed. The debate will continue on social media, and I echo what others said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey): that behaviour really should not happen. To everybody watching this debate, let me say that Members of this House are doing this job for the right reason: they want to make this country safe and this world a better place for us all to live in. If we take away this arena for debate because Members have been threatened, that would be a travesty. We really must keep the dialogue respectful, and that includes the petitioners, the mums and dads of children who have been affected, and those on the other side of the argument.
I thank all hon. Members once again, and I thank you, Mr Gray. I also thank the Petitions Committee, which does a huge amount of work. It is an honour to lead these debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 624876 and 643611 relating to legislation in respect of dangerous dogs.
Written Statements
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Advanced Manufacturing Plan and UK Battery Strategy
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) announced a £4.5 billion package of support for the manufacturing sector as part of our focus on growth and investment. Today, I am pleased to publish the Government’s Advanced Manufacturing Plan and UK Battery Strategy, backed by £3 billion from this package of support. Over £2 billion will support the growth of the UK’s automotive industry, and £975 million will be committed to the aerospace industry.
Advanced Manufacturing Plan
Manufacturing plays a vital role in the UK’s economy. The UK is a global hub for advanced manufacturing, recently overtaking France as the 8th largest manufacturing nation. The Government’s ambition is to build on these strengths and to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a manufacturing business.
The Government have a strong record of helping the sector to thrive. Our approach has led to significant investment successes—Tata has announced a £4 billion gigafactory, and this week Nissan announced it is leading up to £2 billion of new investment to produce two new electric vehicle models in Sunderland. Already, we are the most attractive destination in Europe in terms of strategically significant foreign direct investment (FDI) according to EY, and we must keep it that way.
Last week’s package of measures further cements our commitment to the sector. Today, I am pleased to outline the Government’s complete Advanced Manufacturing Plan, which details the Government’s three key priorities: investing in the long-term future of manufacturing, co-operating internationally and building supply chain resilience; and reducing costs and removing barriers to boost competitiveness. The plan is to be further augmented by:
A new industry Hydrogen Taskforce to set strategic direction for the potential use of hydrogen propulsion systems and manufacturing opportunities for the UK.
Exploring the establishment of a manufacturing observatory which would aim to build our capability with industry and researchers on manufacturing evidence and analysis.
Negotiations on a critical minerals agreement, as part of the Atlantic Declaration announced by the Prime Minister and President Biden in June, to enable those minerals extracted or processed in the UK to count toward sourcing requirements for clean vehicles eligible for tax credits under the US Inflation Reduction Act.
The establishment of an industry forum, supported by a call for evidence, on access to finance for manufacturers to identify the market failures, constraints, and barriers that the sector is facing to unlock additional investment for advanced manufacturing.
Our response to Professor Dame Angela McLean’s Pro-Innovation Regulation of Technologies Review: Advanced Manufacturing, which focuses on how regulation and standards can drive innovation and growth.
A new Grid Connections Action Plan with Ofgem that will help to reduce the average delay a project faces to connect to the transmission network from five years to six months.
The Advanced Manufacturing Plan is also supported by a range of measures in the autumn statement including a commitment to make full expensing permanent. This will allow businesses to invest for less, representing a tax cut to companies of over £10 billion a year and increasing total business investment by £14 billion over the forecast period or £3 billion per year.
UK Battery Strategy
Alongside the Advanced Manufacturing Plan, I am also publishing the UK’s first Battery Strategy. Battery demand is one of the highest growth clean energy sectors in the world and the UK is well placed to reap the rewards due to its research expertise, its thriving automotive sector and its leading electric vehicle battery start-up ecosystem.
Our vision is for the UK to achieve a globally competitive battery supply chain by 2030 and to be a world leader in sustainable design, manufacture, and use of batteries. In the strategy, I am pleased to announce a range of measures to support the UK battery industry, including:
As outlined at autumn statement and in the Advanced Manufacturing Plan, committing £2 billion of capital and R&D funding for zero emission vehicles, batteries and their supply chains to 2030, building on the work of the Automotive Transformation Fund and the Advanced Propulsion Centre.
Investing an additional £50 million to enhance the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre’s development facilities; boosting its capability for R&D in new chemistries and future technologies and in an Advanced Materials Battery Industrialisation Centre in the west midlands and north-east to bridge the gap between laboratory research and commercial production; bringing total Government investment in the Faraday Battery Challenge to over £600 million.
Developing pro-growth battery regulation to support the circular economy. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is committed to publishing a consultation and call for evidence as early as possible in 2024.
Expanding market access for the trade of critical minerals and promoting high international standards in supply chains when negotiating new free trade agreements.
Across our manufacturing sectors, I have been clear that we do not intend to enter a distortive subsidy battle with other economies. The UK’s access to rules-based, free trade through our growing trade agreement portfolio is key to our offer as the best place to do business and for internationally mobile investment. Already, we have signed trade deals with Australia, New Zealand, CPTPP—with more on the way.
The UK has a proud manufacturing heritage. The Advanced Manufacturing Plan and UK Battery Strategy are a major step forward in ensuring its continued long-term success.
I shall place copies of the Advanced Manufacturing Plan and the UK Battery Strategy in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS68]
North East Investment Zone
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
On Friday, the Government and the forthcoming north-east mayoral combined authority jointly announced that the north-east investment zone will focus on advanced manufacturing and green industries, building on the region’s long-standing sectoral strengths and increasing prominence as an international hub for clean energy. Aligned to the arc of innovation—running from Northumberland down to Sunderland and Durham, with opportunities along the Tyne corridor—the north-east investment zone builds on the trailblazer deal announced for the north-east and will bring benefits to businesses and local communities across the whole of the region.
Furthermore, a new Nissan-led investment worth £2 billion is being made into the north-east to develop two new electric vehicle models. This will create demand for a major expansion in the local electric vehicle supply chain, which the investment zone could support.
Building on the region’s existing strengths, including as a world leader in automotive and advanced manufacturing, electric vehicle production, battery manufacturing, the offshore wind sector and advanced low-carbon materials, together with its strong natural assets and strategic geographic location, the north-east investment zone will bring opportunity into the region through a total funding envelope of £160 million over 10 years, following the extension of the investment zones programme that was confirmed at autumn statement 2023. The investment zone has been developed with strong support from the region’s universities and Catapult centres and is aligned to their existing research and innovation excellence. Local partners expect that the investment zone will help leverage significant private funding, including the £2 billion Nissan-led investment announced on Friday, and help support more than 4,000 jobs over the first five years of the programme.
The Government, the forthcoming north-east mayoral combined authority and other local partners will continue to work together on the investment zone to jointly agree the outstanding elements of the programme, including the breakdown of how the north-east investment zone’s funding envelope will be deployed, with a view to setting out further details in due course.
[HCWS71]
UEFA Men's European Championship: Licensing Hours
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The UEFA Men’s European Championship will take place from 14 June to 14 July 2024.
I am pleased to launch a consultation on extending licensing hours in England and Wales for certain matches—specifically the semi-final and final—of the 2024 UEFA European Championship contingent on the England men’s national football team, the Wales men’s national football team and/or the Scotland men’s national football team playing in those matches. The consultation is aimed at members of the public, local licensing authorities, licensed premises, and other interested parties in England and Wales where these proposals apply.
The extension would ensure that licenced premises in England and Wales wishing to host a viewing of the match and potential post-match celebrations are able to do so.
The Government propose to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 which would contingently extend opening hours on the days of the semi-final on 9 and/or 10 July and the final on14 July so that they would end at 01:00—for example, early in the morning after the matches have taken place rather than 23:00 on the day of the matches—for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of regulated entertainment in licensed premises in England and Wales.
The extension would be contingent on England, Wales and/or Scotland reaching those stages of the championship and would not take effect should none of those teams reach those stages of the tournament. I am seeking to use a contingent order to ensure that there is sufficient time to publicly consult on the proposed extension and follow the required parliamentary procedure.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on www.gov.uk. The consultation will run until 19 February 2024.
[HCWS69]
Ban on SIM Farms: Government Response to Consultation
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I am today publishing a response to the consultation on the banning of SIM farms in the UK and introducing legislation that would criminalise the possession and supply of SIM farms used for fraud.
In May 2023, we consulted on a potential ban on SIM farms, defined as devices that can make calls and texts and hold more than four SIM cards at one time. We are grateful to those who took time to respond to the consultation.
Responses to the consultation support the Government’s approach to addressing the issue of SIM farm equipment being used to perpetrate fraud. Respondents agreed that the ban will raise the barrier to entry for those engaging in illegal activities, making it more difficult for them to obtain and exploit SIM farms for fraud.
This consultation has informed legislation that we have brought forward in the Criminal Justice Bill, creating a new criminal offence to supply or possess a SIM farm, subject to certain exemptions for legitimate use and where adequate due diligence has been undertaken. The offence will carry a penalty of an unlimited fine.
The provisions include measures to extend the offence to any other telecommunications device or other article where there is a significant risk of it being used for fraud.
This new offence will give police additional tools to disrupt criminals and make it more difficult to access and abuse SIM farms and similar technologies for fraud.
The response (CP 978) has been laid before the House and is available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS70]
House of Lords
Jobs Market: Graduates
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market for graduates, and whether this assessment points to a mismatch between skills and vacancies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, one-third of vacancies in the UK are due to skills shortages. The Government want to develop a world-leading, employer-focused, high-quality skills system that is fit for the future. Our higher education sector delivers some of the most in-demand occupational skills with the largest workforce needs, including training of nurses and teachers. The DfE published graduate labour market statistics showing that, in 2022, workers with graduate-level qualifications had an 87.3% employment rate and earned an average of £38,500. Both are higher than for non-graduates.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response, but the fact remains that we have swathes of overqualified graduates in jobs not requiring a degree. Outside London, that number has now risen to 42%, and in many regions it is more than half. Graduate vacancies are falling steeply, as is their wage premium, and students have now racked up more than £200 billion of debt, much of which will never be repaid. How do the Government plan to respond to the damaging mismatch between skills and vacancies?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary question. I recognise some of the points that he makes about the regional differences in graduate opportunities. However, on our wider skills strategy, the Government have introduced the lifelong learning Act, which will offer students the ability to reskill and upskill over their lifetimes. We are investing in skills at all levels and also focusing on making sure that the quality of all degrees is as high as can be.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I was so surprised by the absence of other noble Lords asking questions that I almost did not get up. Could the Minister think particularly about the creative industries, where, at the moment, there is a significant lack of people to fill vacancies? It is true, as I think she would agree, that, historically, it is not the highest paid sector, but it is one of the most highly skilled, and yet—and here she might not agree—the education system really does not emphasise enough the value of the skills needed for the creative industries. Could she let the House know how those skills are being better valued in the education system, so that those vacancies can be filled?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness has anticipated well that I do not agree that those skills are not valued in our education system. Obviously, those skills are evolving and developing more into digital skills; that is an area in which we are focused both in schools and in skills bootcamps, T-levels and beyond.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that we have a shortage of teachers—some might call it a crisis of teacher vacancies—in our schools. We also have a crisis of shortages in specialist subjects, such as physics and the creative subjects, as we have heard. Fewer and fewer young people are going into teaching or studying education at university. To try to avert this crisis, is there a case for saying that we will refund your tuition fees if you become a teacher?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are not considering that at the moment, and I remind the House that teacher numbers are at an all-time high, at over 468,000.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I welcome both the Government’s efforts to make apprenticeships more accessible to ensure that people can be supported into key occupations and the expansion of this into the health service, especially with the recent NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. In healthcare professions, cover is required for apprentices’ roles when they are studying. Those apprentices are often on full-time salaries, so backfilled funding will have to be found to ensure that those workplaces can cope. As this cannot be covered by the apprenticeship levy, what support are the Government offering to ensure that those apprenticeship routes can be successful?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are committed to the development of apprenticeships at all levels, including, for example, degree apprenticeships for nurses in the NHS. In relation to the earlier question, we are also exploring teacher apprenticeships. I will have to write to the right reverend Prelate on the specifics of the funding of backfilling.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness tell us why the Secretary of State has cut the higher technical education skills injection fund by one-third, down from £32 million to £21 million, at a time when the country is facing major skills shortages? It is just another example of short-termism, selling the country—and graduates—short.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness talks about £32 million; our skills reforms are backed by an investment of £3.8 billion over the course of this Parliament to strengthen higher and further education. In particular, we announced £200 million of funding for local skills innovation funds, supporting the local skills partnerships led by employers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I come back to teachers and extend the issue to healthcare workers such as doctors and nurses. I declare my interest as a member of the GMC council. If you look at the stats for trainee doctors and nurses after they have graduated, and then look at how many stay in the health service for, say, two to three years after graduation, you find that the attrition rate is alarmingly high. Is there not a case for tying some financial incentive to sticking with the health service for five years or more and at least mitigating the cost of some of your student loan?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am less familiar with the details of the health service but, in relation to teaching and children’s social care, that is why there is so much focus in our work on retention, support for early career teachers and improving the quality of initial teacher training.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Would my noble friend agree that there are many reasons why youngsters should choose a particular course at university, of which employment or potential for future employment is an important one? I declare an interest, as I have a daughter presently at university. Could my noble friend say what the Government, and indeed universities themselves, are doing to inform youngsters making choices on which degrees to pursue at university, so that they have more information about their employability thereafter?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that young people should be well-equipped to understand not just the options for their subject but that subject at that particular institution, because we know that future earnings power, and in addition future job satisfaction, vary very much between institutions. There are improvements being made, and I am happy to send details to my noble friend on ways that students can access that information.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, this is not just for the arts, and it is about not just training up or career awareness but affordability. The plain fact is that many employers in the arts today cannot afford the skilled workers they need. It is at this point that the Government should intervene.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am always slightly baffled by this line of questioning, because when I look at the performance of our creative industries and the performing arts, I see that they are resoundingly successful, both domestically and globally. I appreciate that there are skills pressures in those areas, but they are ones that many organisations are overcoming.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, should not those with science degrees who have not got jobs be strongly encouraged to train to help fill the many physics vacancies which are causing so much worry in the education system?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of the detail as to whether there is a mismatch between those with science degrees, in particular physics degrees, and vacancies. My understanding is that the opportunities for those with STEM degrees are significantly higher at higher professional levels than for those without.
Sudan and South Sudan
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support peace and democracy in Sudan and South Sudan.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is committed to supporting Sudan and South Sudan to achieve an enduring peace. In Sudan, we are pursuing all diplomatic avenues to press the warring parties into a sustained and meaningful peace process that paves the way to a return to a civilian-led government. In South Sudan, we continue to urge the Government to implement the peace agreement and secure a peaceful transition to democracy through free and fair elections.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, conflict between the two armed forces within Sudan has intensified over the last few months. Just a few days ago, the Sudan Government then informed or notified the United Nations that it wanted to pull out of the United Nations Assistance Mission ASAP or by 3 December, which is the last date on which this current rollover mandate of peace remains. As the UK is penholder on Sudan at the UN, can my noble friend tell me what negotiations there have been with the Sudanese Government to ensure that this mandate is rolled over, in a way that maintains the present level of impact upon Sudan? Otherwise, the millions of people who have been displaced, including 3 million children who are now on the verge of famine, will not be fed.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The UK led the renewal of the mandate for the UN Integrated Transitional Assistance Mission in Sudan on 2 June to ensure that the UNITAMS process would have the most effective mandate possible to address the crisis in Sudan. She is absolutely right: there are 6.2 million people displaced, 1.2 million of them in neighbouring countries. As penholder on Sudan at the Security Council, we work in close partnership with the UN, including on how the UN can best support the Sudanese people going forwards. We will continue to work with Sudan and other interested parties on this ahead of the expiry of the UNITAMs mandate on 3 December. It is absolutely vital that all countries are doing their bit to try to assist the people who are suffering most in this terrible conflict.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the conflict in Sudan is tragically forgotten by the world. The UN is paralysed, while the African Union stands on the other side and watches what happens. There is no real prospect yet of a ceasefire or any positive movement, so what can the Government do? As a penholder, can we persuade other Governments to increase support for the aid agencies as the tragedy unfolds?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord rightly portrays a very stark situation, but the conflict is not ignored by this Government. We strongly believe that neither of the warring parties should have any role in power in a future Sudan, and we support an African-led approach to resolving the crisis. We are working with a range of partners, including the Quad—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the United States and ourselves—as well as African countries, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the African Union and the UN to achieve a permanent ceasefire and allow unfettered humanitarian access. One of the great problems is getting humanitarian access to particular parts of Sudan; just getting visas for humanitarian aid workers is impossible. We are also helping a broad group of Sudanese civilian actors and stakeholders—that most recently took place in Addis Ababa at the end of October. My ministerial colleagues and I will continue to have meetings with parties to try to affect a changing situation, but I entirely agree that it looks bleak at the moment.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, if we get a leakage of water causing damage at home, the first thing we do is turn off the supply system. I know that I will be told that we have the most rigid control of arms in the world, but arms manufactured in this country are being sold to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which then sell them on to the warring parties in Sudan. Is that acceptable?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is a long-standing UK arms embargo in place for the whole of Sudan, as well as a UN arms embargo on Darfur. If the noble Lord wants to give me more evidence of what he said, I will certainly take it up.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the displacement of people raised by the noble Baroness, who is absolutely right about UN involvement and our responsibility as a penholder. What was our response to the World Food Programme, which has announced that it requires £150 million just to support those who have moved to Chad? Can we take this issue seriously? As the noble Baroness said, women, girls and children are in an absolutely desperate situation and we need to respond.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is right about the situation. Some 24.7 million people need assistance and, as I said earlier, 6.2 million people have been displaced since 15 April, a large proportion of whom are in Darfur. Our top humanitarian priority is to secure humanitarian access and operational security guarantees for humanitarian agencies, as there can be no aid without safe and reliable access. In May, the Minister for Development and Africa announced £21.7 million in UK humanitarian aid for Sudan, as well as £5 million to help meet the urgent needs of refugees and returnees fleeing violence in Sudan into South Sudan and Chad. UK support is providing nutrition, drinking water and medical aid, as well as supporting our protection services, including for those affected by gender-based violence, of which there is a horrendous amount.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place. He mentioned the democratic civilian forces meeting in Addis Ababa at the end of October. I declare an interest, in that I was there with them and I have been supporting them since the outbreak of the conflict in April. That meeting was a major move forward, and they are now working on a programme called Takadum, which means “progress”. Does the Minister agree with me that, if there is to be space for those civilians to take part in any meaningful peace negotiations to end this terrible conflict, the conflict cannot be prolonged? Armaments for the RSF and the SAF forces are being replenished, so will the Government consider having sanctions ready for any neighbouring countries—the whole sweep of Libya and Egypt, as well as the UAE, Turkey and Iran—participating in that replenishment during this dreadful conflict?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his involvement in this process. On 12 July, the Minster for Africa and Development announced a package of six UK sanctions, putting in place an asset freeze on the three commercial entities linked to each party involved in the conflict—the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. We do not speculate on future sanctions, but we will certainly look at anything that would limit the illegal activities that bring arms and cause this massive problem to continue, and we will certainly work with the noble Lord and others to ensure we are achieving that.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, peacebuilding requires specific, focused actions on the ground. There are few organisations on the ground in Sudan that have any credibility. Faith-based organisations, however, both Christian and Islamic, do. What specific steps have His Majesty’s Government taken to support faith-based organisations in their work in that country?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Next door, in South Sudan, there was an extremely important visit by the Holy Father, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. That certainly coalesced faith-based organisations in that area. However, in Sudan it is, if anything, more difficult because of this raging civil war. The noble Lord is right that civil society and faith-based organisations are very often the best people at delivering aid and support and trying to get humanitarian aid to those areas as quickly as possible.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, on 14 July, members of the PSVI international alliance issued a joint statement condemning reports of increased sexual violence and calling on all parties to stop the violence. Four months later, on almost a daily basis we hear about rape being used as a weapon of war, particularly in Darfur. We are seeing a repeat of the actions that led to genocide 20 years ago. What is my noble friend’s proposal? How do we address this? How do we best interfere and intervene in order not to see a repeat of the crimes that were committed then?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises a really important point. We have attacked in the strongest terms the atrocities we are hearing reports of from across Sudan. We initiated the Sudan Core Group members’ resolution to establish an independent fact-finding mission for Sudan, which was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in October, and we will support future accountability efforts in Sudan. We condemn the ongoing attacks in west Darfur on innocent civilians by militias, particularly the RSF, which have all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing. My noble friend is absolutely right: the use of rape and torture as weapons of war is utterly appalling, and we want to ensure not only that it stops but that those who have partaken of this are held accountable.
Rail Fares
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their plans to simplify rail fares; and what steps they are taking to increase confidence among passengers that, when they purchase tickets, they will always receive the best value for their requirements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, the plan for rail proposes the biggest shake-up of rail in a generation. We have already made progress on fares reform, for example, introducing flexible season tickets and delivering on our commitment to extend single-leg pricing to most of LNER’s network. We announced earlier this year that we would deliver pay-as-you-go to 53 more stations in the south-east and, through trailblazer devolution deals, pay-as-you-go pilots in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, following the fiasco of the Government’s proposed closure of all ticket offices, which was of course resoundingly rejected by the travelling public, we urgently need decisive action to improve rail services. Great British Railways has, it seems, been kicked into the long grass but one aspect, ticketing reforms, to which the Minister’s Answer refers, could be done now throughout the whole network without legislation. The one isolated trial and the Government’s plans simply are not good enough to create the reform that is needed, to restore passengers’ trust and to improve value for money. When do the Government plan to introduce single-leg pricing and the overall reform throughout the whole network?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
At the Bradshaw address, we committed to expand single-leg pricing to most of LNER’s network, and this went live on 11 June 2023. This delivers simpler, more flexible tickets that are better value. Passengers can now get the best value ticket for their journey, safe in the knowledge that a single ticket will be half the price of a return. Previously, some single tickets on LNER trains, for example, cost almost as much as a return. Single-leg pricing is much simpler, putting the price of a single ticket at around half the cost of the old return ticket.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s comment. Would he care to comment on the following experience? Recently, I booked a standard return ticket on the west coast main line and was told I could not have reserved seats without trading in the tickets and buying two single ones at a cost of £25 more.
Lord Davies of Gower
I cannot particularly comment on that one issue, but I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord’s experience and it is certainly something I will take back.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, as someone who is infrequent on the rail service, as a Londoner, when I do travel I enjoy the experience. What I have seen over the last few years is increased digitisation and more tickets being purchased online. I think we should welcome that, the ease of fares that are being seen online and the work being done by the train operating companies. Another thing I have noticed is that, as personal experience shows, if there are delays and challenges on the rail network then refunds are being offered quite easily—or advertised, at least, to be offered quite easily. The process itself, though, feels a bit more complex, because I have not yet been able to attain one of those refunds. Will the Government and my noble friend look at how we could automate refunds, to make that better for the user experience?
Lord Davies of Gower
My noble friend makes a very good point and, as somebody who has made several applications for refunds online, it is not the simplest of processes. Indeed, for those less acquainted with computers and software, it is even more difficult. I take his point and it is something that, again, I will take back.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the Minister to the experience of evening travellers from Euston to north Wales—the Bangor and Holyhead line operated by Avanti services—who, incredibly, might find that there are no through tickets from Euston to Bangor using tickets booked in advance. If, on the same train, a ticket is purchased from Euston to Chester and another from Chester to Bangor, there is availability. Would I be unduly cynical in thinking there is some manipulation going on to try and rationalise the services?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord says, and I think that I will take that one back as well.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that as long ago as 2019 the Government accepted that there was chaos in the present rail fare structures about which something had to be done? The answer was to set up Great British Railways, which would have new powers to deal with this question. Given the urgency of getting more passengers back on the railway, given the rise in public subsidy to the railways from £4 billion to £13 billion in four years, why have the Government ducked doing this?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Not on this occasion. My Lords, we are focusing on delivering for passengers and customers by integrating new opportunities, such as, as I said earlier, the recently announced £36 billion of funding for Network North, fares and ticketing reform and improving accessibility, as well as delivering the £44 billion settlement for Network Rail to support the safe and efficient running of the network for customers between 2024 and 2029. Securing a slot for pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft rail reform Bill demonstrates the Government’s real commitment to our railways.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to his post. I have some sympathy with him as far as rail ticketing is concerned, because everybody thinks it should be reformed if it means they get cheaper tickets. The simple fact is that as long as the Treasury has the control that it does over the rail companies, which is greater now than it has ever been, through the department, then we will not make much progress on this matter. When does he expect to see the results of LNER’s experiment? Does he think this can be rolled out more quickly than presently planned?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I hope that this can be rolled out as quickly as it possibly can be, but again, I am afraid I cannot give a definitive answer at this point.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister join me in congratulating the RMT trade union on exposing the scale of underclaiming of compensation for delayed and cancelled trains, and the scale of profiteering by apps such as Trainline? Does he agree with the great majority of public opinion that believes it is high time that the public good was put ahead of private profit in respect of ownership of our railways?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The rail industry is in a difficult financial position. The department has spent in the region of £31 billion of taxpayers’ money. That amounts to about £1,000 per household in 2020-21 and 2021-22, since the pandemic. Reforming the rail network is critical to improve the passenger experience and to ensure the financial and operational sustainability of the railway. The industry has put forward fair and reasonable deals, offering job security and a fair pay rise. Government funding has been secured to facilitate important reforms of the railway. However, agreeing pay increases has to be linked to taking forward these important reforms.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Will my noble friend bring his undoubted acumen to bear, in addition to the rail fares, to simplifying buying tickets to park at railway stations, where you virtually need a degree in science to work it out?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I must confess, I park my car every week at a station car park to come here and I have not found any difficulty: I walk into the station, buy a ticket and put it on my windscreen. So, I am sorry to hear the noble Lord’s difficulty but, again, I will take that back.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister promises a strategy, but my noble friend’s question was about when the benefits of the LNER trial will be rolled out across the whole network. I do not think customers on the whole of the network would like the Minister simply to hope it will happen. What is the strategic objective of when it will happen?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am not in a position to give that answer at the moment, I am afraid, but when I am, I will certainly let the House know.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, as is well known to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and to the Minister, the trains from Swansea were again late this morning. The first thing I do when I arrive, either in London or in Swansea, is fill in a claim form. Can he take this up, from his new, elevated position, with GWR?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is something I can speak of with great experience, as a regular traveller from Swansea to Paddington. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Recent trains have been very late and compensation has been due. I am very aware of that.
Metropolitan Police Reform
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress of reform within the Metropolitan Police.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, reform of the Metropolitan Police Service is vital and the Government fully support the commissioner’s plan, A New Met for London. It is the responsibility of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to assess force performance improvement and for the Mayor of London to hold the commissioner to account for the progress being made.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I called on the Government exactly a year ago to give Sir Mark Rowley the stronger disciplinary powers for which he was asking in order to root out crime and serious abuse in the Met, which so shocks our country. Instead of taking action, the Government instituted a review. When will Sir Mark finally get the powers he seeks? Must not a thorough clean-up of the Met include calling to account the police officers who failed so grievously during Operation Midland, that infamous investigation that unforgivably hounded two great public servants, Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan? Finally, is it not astonishing that, after several years, the Independent Office for Police Conduct has only now got round to just one serious investigation arising from Operation Midland? That is into the conduct of Mr Steve Rodhouse, the man in charge of the disgraceful operation. On past form, this could drag on for years while Mr Rodhouse enjoys a full salary. Do not those who have suffered deserve better than this?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we launched a review. That review was concluded and the results were published in September. Noble Lords will be aware of the contents of the review. As regards introducing the powers that Sir Mark clearly needs and has asked for, some of that will require primary legislation; it will form part of the Criminal Justice Bill, which is due to reach Committee stage in the Commons and be debated in January. Some of it will require secondary legislation. We expect that the first tranche of changes will see amendments to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, which should be implemented around April; the second tranche, which covers wider misconduct, vetting and performance measures, is expected to be introduced around June.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, resignations are now overtaking retirement as the biggest reason for officers leaving the Met. This year, every month but May has seen more resignations, and the equivalent of 100 full-time officers leaving. Given the importance of institutional memory to policing, what assessment have the Government made of the reasons for this ongoing exodus? Consequent on that assessment, what discussions has the new Home Secretary had with the Mayor of London and the Met’s commissioner about the challenges inherent in retaining Met personnel?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that officer strength at the moment is 34,899—at least it was in March 2023—which is up from 33,367 in March 2010; that is the highest number of officers the Metropolitan Police Service has had to date. As regards the conversations of the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister have met with the commissioner in the past two weeks. We fully support HMICFRS in identifying areas of poor performance and have seen the commissioner act swiftly to set out his planned improvements, which are necessary, through the plan that I just mentioned, A New Met for London. The Home Office is also a member of the HMICFRS police performance oversight group. We monitor progress and ensure that the Metropolitan Police gets the support it needs from across the policing sector to improve as quickly as possible.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, having heard the Minister’s dates for secondary and not primary legislation, why on earth is it taking so long?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness asks me a very good question; I am afraid that I do not understand the inner workings of the secondary legislation and SI process, but I will find out.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, last month, the police watchdog published an urgent report warning of the serious risks posed to London’s most vulnerable children by the Met’s ongoing failures in child protection. This issue was first highlighted in a damning report by HMICFRS six years ago. It cannot be allowed to continue. Have the Government met the commissioner and the Mayor of London to demand action now—that is, not in a month’s time or a year’s time? This is serious and it must be sorted out now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right that this problem dates back. As she pointed out, in October, HMICFRS issued two accelerated causes of concern due to significant failures in how the Metropolitan Police responds to children reported missing and also to those at risk of child and sexual criminal exploitation. As I mentioned in a previous answer, the Home Secretary and the commissioner have met a couple of times over the past week, as has the Policing Minister. HMICFRS publishes quarterly reports on the progress that the Met is making with regard to child protection. In regard to the two recommendations that have recently been mentioned, HMICFRS has provided two recommendations encouraging swift and tangible progress on those issues to the Metropolitan Police with timelines for delivery by the end of this year.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the recent increase in the number of massive demonstrations in central London is a positive sign of a politically engaged population. However, they place huge extra pressure on our police, with many officers—perhaps hundreds if not thousands—being drafted in from right across the country to help. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on police capacity, effectiveness and morale?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I thank all the officers from around the country who have been drafted in to assist with the policing of these protests. I was very pleased to see that, at the weekend, the protest passed largely without too much trouble. As regards morale, that would be for the commissioner to share with us but, as I said, conversations are current, topical and ongoing.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I revert to a point made by my noble friend Lord Lexdon in his admirable Question. Two Members of your Lordships’ House who are now sadly no longer with us, Lord Brittan and Lord Bramall, were traduced in an almost unimaginable way as a result of Operation Midland. I know that noble Lords throughout the House feel very strongly on this. Why can there not be, even at this stage, a proper investigation into Operation Midland, including precisely what went wrong and why?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend raises an interesting subject. It has been raised with me at this Dispatch Box 14 times over the past two years. I am afraid that my answer is not going to change. It will remain consistent across those 14, now 15, answers: the Government have no plans to interfere in this.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made an important point about serious misconduct, as did the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The Minister said that he was going to take it back. This is of extreme urgency. If the Metropolitan Police is to command confidence and trust, it will take two years to deal with the approximately 1,000 police officers who are suspended or on restricted duties. The public have to know that those 1,000 officers and however many are uncovered by the commissioner will be dealt with quickly and speedily according to new misconduct regulations because the current ones seriously do not work. Can the Minister tackle this as a matter of urgency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of urgency—of course it is—but it is also urgent that we get it right and make sure that all the possible unintended consequences are dealt with well in advance of implementing what are in some cases new, pretty draconian regulations, particularly with regard to how police officers might lose their careers. It deserves careful thought rather than coming back to the Dispatch Box and unpicking mistakes that might be made because we acted in haste.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Can I ask Minister about his answer to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss? My understanding is that primary legislation is drafted by parliamentary counsel and that statutory instruments are drafted by the department’s lawyers. So what is the problem inside the Home Office? It is in charge of the lawyers there; it is not parliamentary counsel. It ought to be quicker than it is at the moment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is perhaps the case but, of course, we still have to find parliamentary time for these things.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, why do we have to wait for the Criminal Justice Bill before the statutory instruments can be produced in this particular case? Could we not move to a statutory instrument straightaway so that this long delay, which seems to be all-pervasive here, can at least be shortened to an extent?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would very much like to see it shortened. I do not know the answer to that but I will come back.
Foetal Sentience Committee Bill [HL]
Monday 27th November 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Foetal Sentience Committee Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Foetal Sentience Committee Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL]
Monday 27th November 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Schools (Mental Health Professionals) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 September be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2022–23. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 November.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 September be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interest in the company that I founded, which was accredited under these rules. The fact that it is accredited means I have some experience, which always helps in an area. It is not affected by these regulations, but I was keen to state that for the record.
The 2023 regulations update the legislation introduced in 2020 to impose requirements on private providers of Covid-19 diagnostic testing. Once they are implemented, private providers will need to be accredited by a signatory of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation mutual recognition arrangement before they can supply testing. These measures replace the current three-stage UK Accreditation Service process with a simplified and streamlined one. They also remove requirements that are no longer necessary due to legislative developments that have taken place since 2020. The changes will empower consumers to choose a private testing service with confidence, continuing to improve safety and quality. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020 focused on enabling providers who met appropriate quality standards to be able to rapidly enter the private testing market. This struck the appropriate balance at the time between protecting public health and growing the market quickly.
I am pleased that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, so the urgent need to grow the Covid-19 testing market quickly no longer applies. The department has therefore reviewed the 2020 regulations and proposes that all private providers must be fully accredited before providing testing services. This amendment will bring in requirements and standards that help to strengthen consistency, safety and high-quality Covid testing services.
I am pleased to be debating the statutory instrument that is necessary to implement our proposed updates to the existing legislation. The 2020 regulations introduced a three-stage accreditation process for organisations providing Covid testing commercially. The three-stage accreditation process requires providers to satisfy the UK Accreditation Service that they meet the relevant ISO standards within a set timeframe. Stage 1 requires the private provider to make an application to UKAS for accreditation and make a declaration to DHSC that they meet and will continue to meet certain minimum standards. Stage 2 requires the applicant to demonstrate, within four weeks of applying for accreditation, that they meet requirements published by UKAS. From January until June 2021, stage 3 required providers to complete their application within four months.
We wanted to ensure that a greater number of high-quality applicants were given sufficient opportunity to complete the process and reduce resourcing constraints on UKAS while maintaining quality control. In June 2021, we passed legislation to update stage 3. Applicants were now required to achieve a “positive recommendation” from UKAS within four months of completing stage 2. Provided they received this, they then had a further two months to achieve accreditation. Providers who fail to meet any of these deadlines, or fail to satisfy UKAS that they meet the relevant standards within this timetable, have to stop supplying testing. The purpose of this approach was to ensure that enough providers were able to enter the market soon enough to meet the public demand for testing. It ensured that we were not as a country left with insufficient testing capacity while still putting providers through an appropriate process.
Now I move to the substance of the regulations. The 2023 regulations implement several policies coming into force from 1 January 2024. First, private providers—diagnostic laboratories, sample collection and point-of-care testing—must be accredited against the appropriate ISO standard by a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation mutual recognition arrangement before they can start supplying their service. This replaces the three-stage accreditation process. Since setting up this process, the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 were updated to prescribe a specific process for the validation of Covid-19 test devices. We therefore no longer need test validation measures in these regulations as well, so we are removing those. Secondly, the amendments reflect the publication of the updated ISO Standards 15189:2022. The amendments are forward-looking and do not affect private providers who applied under the previous ISO standards—ISO/IEC 17025:2017—before this instrument came into force. Lastly, this instrument removes the requirements to make a declaration to DHSC at the start of the application process and shifts the legal responsibilities for the clinical service to the private providers providing the clinical service, rather than the customer-facing part of the testing service.
The amendments will hold providers to high standards, by requiring them to be accredited before they can join the market. This will give confidence to individuals choosing Covid-19 testing services. The amendments also remove the additional requirements and administrative steps that were necessary in the early stages of the pandemic. Those who have already achieved accreditation will be unaffected by the change; that is, they will not need to reapply for accreditation under the new regulations. All private providers will be required, as normal, to transition to the new ISO standard by 6 December 2025 at the latest.
The amendments allow private providers who are accredited by a signatory of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation mutual recognition arrangement to enter the market. The UK Accreditation Service is one of 90 accreditation bodies that have signed the arrangement. It enhances the acceptance of products and services across national borders. By accepting accreditation from these signatories, we help to remove barriers to trade such as the retesting or inspection of products.
Private providers must be accredited to the relevant ISO standards for clinical testing services. These standards were reviewed and updated in 2022 and transition proceedings have begun: the old standards will be revoked in 2025. The existing 2020 regulations do not reflect the updated ISO standard. So, if we did not make these amendments, providers who transition to the new ISO standards—as they are required to do—would not under our own rules be able to provide testing services. This is a clear lacuna that we need to address.
I am happy to be bringing forward this legislation today. These regulations will reduce bureaucracy whilst still delivering rigorous accreditation requirements, important for public health. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it is good to be able to debate a piece of legislation that is quite technical but still quite important. The regulations themselves are entirely sensible as tidying-up legislation after the coronavirus pandemic, but they trigger a few points that are worth putting on the record and seeking a response from the Minister on.
The first is just to note that it is good that we are following the international standards on this. I am sure all noble Lords experienced that period during the pandemic when there was confusion around which countries accepted whose tests and it became blindingly obvious that we needed international recognition. It is pleasing that we are following a standard that, as the Minister said, 90 bodies are now signed up to. It is good to have the confidence that when we pay for tests here in the United Kingdom, there is a good chance that they will have that international recognition. Does the Minister have a sense of whether other countries are following a similar path, where they implemented a special regime during the pandemic that they are now transitioning into a normal regime, just as we are doing today? Is the United Kingdom in step with other countries or are we ahead of or behind them? It would be interesting to know that; I assume the department has done some work around it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, to which we too are pleased to give our support. We have clearly moved on from where we were in 2020, when the original Covid regulations for testing service providers were agreed and “lateral flow device” was not a household term. Looking back to 2020, these Benches supported the regulations then because we recognised the urgent need to enable new service providers to meet the demand for testing services. We also noted that that had to be balanced with the importance of public health protections and regulations to build safeguards into the system and, so importantly, to give people the confidence that services could be trusted to keep them safe.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations apply to clinical Covid-19 testing services such as diagnostic laboratories or those that carry out point-of-care testing. The regulations will mean that these services are no longer subject to the additional requirements introduced early in the pandemic and, as such, reflect an update to meet us where we are now. They also reflect the update to the international standards since last year.
It is important to acknowledge what the regulations will not change. As the Minister said, providers will still be required to seek accreditation against the appropriate ISO standard. Test devices will still need to meet the requirements set out in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, just as they did before the pandemic. In my view, this strikes the right balance. As the UK Health Security Agency has noted, accreditation was not mandatory prior to the pandemic but NHS England and Public Health England endorsed all medical laboratories being accredited with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The process for laboratories to achieve accredited status took anywhere between six and 12 months. Given the changes we are discussing, how long does the Minister expect the accreditation process to take now?
As it is so important that we learn lessons from the past and apply them to the future, I have a few questions on this generality to the Minister. What confidence does he have that new providers will be able to meet the various deadlines to meet the new ISO requirements? How will the regulations we are discussing be enforced? Does the United Kingdom Accreditation Service have the resources it needs for enforcement? How many fines have been issued to non-compliant providers since the 2020 regulations came into force?
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it pays to think about the state of the market now. How many UKHSA-accredited providers were there at the pandemic’s peak, and how many are there now? As some companies wind down their Covid-19 testing capacities because of reduced demand, what assessment has the department made of how the market is changing and how such diagnostic capabilities could be deployed to meet other ends?
In concluding, I take the opportunity to ask the Minister about one of the biggest scandals among private providers during the pandemic: that relating to the company Immensa. Local public health experts were baffled as to why an NHS Test and Trace contract had been given to the company while high-quality diagnostic services, such as those at the University of Birmingham, were being wound down. Immensa was awarded more than £100 million in a contract to carry out Covid testing in September 2021, without going through the normal tendering process. It was subsequently found to have been one of 50 firms that had been put into the priority lane for test and trace contracts worth billions. It was also found that PCR test results from Immensa’s Wolverhampton lab had misreported around 40,000 positive results as negative between September and October 2021, leading to significant additional infections at a critical time and an estimated 20 extra deaths.
I have specific questions on this issue and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to me, if not now then in writing. Neither Immensa Health Clinic Ltd nor its related company Dante Labs Ltd was accredited by UKAS at the time of the scandal, despite the regulations that we are amending today. Immensa was a new entrant to the market and was supposed to go through the three-stage process, yet it was awarded vast sums of public money to rapidly expand the capacity of NHS Test and Trace in the autumn of 2021. One would expect high standards from a private provider in exchange, but that did not appear to be the case. An investigation by UKHSA found that, despite requirements for accreditation being written into the contract, the department and NHS Test and Trace decided that they would not apply. As such, Immensa was not accredited at the time of the false negatives scandal, even though the department claimed otherwise. Is the Minister able to confirm what actually happened in this case?
The findings of the UKHSA report risk undermining the rest of the system, if providers could not be encouraged to circumvent the correct process and there were no consequences as a result. Why were the department and NHS Test and Trace so determined that special measures should be put in place for this provider? I am not aware of any consequences for any officials or Ministers responsible for the shocking findings of the UKHSA investigation. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether this was the case and, if so, why? Given the tens of millions of pounds of public money involved in the scandal and the dire consequences of the mistakes, can the Minister advise your Lordships’ House what efforts the Government have made to get the money back?
In conclusion, these Benches support the statutory instrument. We very much agree that now is absolutely the appropriate time to review the exceptional measures that were taken early in the pandemic while ensuring that appropriate regulation and confidence remains in place.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their responses and generally for the support they offer for what we are trying to do here. As I say, for a lot of my answers I will draw from personal experience. The whole of that time was extraordinary, as we know. To my knowledge, it was the first time where you had a situation in which masses of people could be tested for something. However, it needed laboratory-based testing, and suddenly the amount of volume needed for the general public was completely out of anyone’s imagination as regards the volume of the market. I remember trying to understand the rules at the time, as somebody who might set up such a company to do this, and I quickly found out that there were no rules, in that nobody had ever quite envisaged such a situation and the only rule that existed was around getting an ISO process, which typically took 12 to 18 months.
What the Government did there—again, I am speaking from the other side of the fence—was to create a good process of trying to funnel people, starting off with quite easy ways to get you through the funnel because they wanted to expand it as much as possible, but then effectively making it progressively harder while still trying to keep the good suppliers in the mix. By and large they did a decent job on that. I saw some providers completely gaming the system, in that they kept ticking the boxes as long as they were allowed to tick them and then as soon as it came to a hard task, for want of a better word, they folded up shop. There was definitely some of that, and the funnel sorted out some of the wheat from the chaff along the way, but at the same time I will not pretend it was a perfect process.
I say all this from sitting on the other side of the fence and having to jump through necessary hoops, but I actually think it was a decent process at the end of the day. As ever, I will come back in writing on all this, but my understanding was that it was a fairly similar process to that followed by other countries, and they are now going through a fairly similar process to regularise this.
As I said, I absolutely looked at the difference in outcomes versus existing regimes, and I am under no doubt that, if we kept the rules of the existing regimes, the supply would not have expanded in the way required at the time. On what the Government were trying to achieve, the evidence shows that they achieved a decent outcome, where, by and large, the quality outcomes were pretty good, although not perfect—the noble Baroness brought up a good example of where it definitely was not perfect. By and large, they did a decent job on that.
Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to giving patients better, more joined-up healthcare services. To do so, we need to ensure that we have the right procurement regime so that the NHS can best allocate resources which meet the needs of patients. These regulations do that. They would establish the provider selection regime on 1 January 2024.
This House knows that the challenges we face as a country are changing, and the NHS is changing to address them—an ageing population, an increase in people with multiple health conditions, and persistent inequalities in health outcomes. We must respond to these challenges. To meet them, we need to provide an enabling and empowering framework that allows the NHS to combine the value of competition with the benefits of collaboration in the interests of patients.
In March last year, the Health and Care Act 2022 was passed. It sought to bring together NHS organisations and partners to tackle issues in our health and care system. This instrument builds on that progress. In 2019, engagement across the NHS identified that the use of the current rules on procurement presented a bureaucratic barrier to bringing NHS organisations and partners together. NHS colleagues wanted a framework that allowed them to use the right approach for different scenarios; a framework that included competition without defaulting to it and which supported the increased need for the alignment of services, including those provided by non-statutory organisations in the voluntary sector, to join up care for patients. The Government developed the legislative framework in the light of these requests. Furthermore, in June 2019, the Health and Social Care Committee also agreed that this was the right approach to
“ease the burden procurement rules have placed on the NHS, ensuring commissioners have discretion over when to conduct a procurement process”.
As our colleagues in the NHS and across the health system have emphasised, we must seek to balance a system-driven approach to planning services while recognising the importance of provider diversity for service innovation and value. That is also why my officials have worked closely with a broad range of colleagues and organisations across the system, including both commissioners and providers of healthcare services, to prepare the instrument before you today. This work has included extensive consultation. In 2021, NHS England published a consultation on the detail of the policy behind this instrument. Of 420 responses received from NHS representative bodies and individuals, 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the detailed proposals set out in that consultation. In 2022, the department published a further consultation to help inform the detail of our regulations.
Finally, we have not neglected to do the analysis of impacts associated with this regime change. Our voluntary impact assessment shows that, in the most likely scenarios, introducing this instrument will deliver savings to the NHS by reducing bureaucracy. Although it is difficult to provide a precise figure ahead of monitoring this regime, those noble Lords who have read the assessment will be aware that our central estimate suggests that savings of up to £230 million are possible. While I am on this subject, I was very glad to see that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee welcomed our consultation and voluntary impact assessment in its report on this instrument.
To summarise, the instrument reflects engagement and careful balancing to present commissioners with the right options for procurement so that they can find the most collaborative, value-add solutions that will work for patients. Engagement with providers has told us that both more collaborative approaches to healthcare—where those with services to offer can get around the table, help break down barriers and promote provider diversity—and putting a contract out to tender are valuable and need to be in the commissioner’s toolkit. That is why this instrument reaffirms the role of competition in arranging services by providing explicitly for those processes, while also providing some flexibility to commissioners to adopt a more direct approach.
As many noble Lords will know, getting the balance of a framework right to promote the best culture and behaviour on the ground is tricky. I am glad, therefore, that we have worked so closely with providers and commissioners to find and test that balance. One result of that engagement was to agree to establish an independently chaired panel which will act as a non-statutory advisory body for contested decisions made under this regime. We intend that this will help commissioners think carefully about the approach that they take to procurement, and its justifications.
Furthermore, we must ensure that the system understands these rules so that it can have the best chance of promoting the right behaviour on the ground. That is why NHS England is leading an extensive programme of familiarisation with those draft regulations and the draft statutory guidance, which is available online. Of course, legislation and guidance are only part of the story of how the new legislation will influence outcomes. That is why the department is committed to monitoring and evaluating this new regime from its implementation.
For these reasons, I am content to move these draft regulations, which, subject to the approval of the House, would bring the provider selection regime into force. I beg to move.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. They get the NHS off the hook from inappropriate compulsory competitive tendering of clinical services but also avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Open procurement will remain an option where it is in patients’ and taxpayers’ interests.
In my previous experience, there have been several problems with the way in which the accretion of UK procurement rules and the EU procurement regime have tied the hands of the NHS. We have often had to go through the motions of competitive clinical procurements for services that would quite obviously be provided only in one place and by one part of the NHS—for example, billions of pounds-worth of specialised cardiac and cancer services for which it was blindingly obvious that the Germans and Italians would not turn up and try to replace Leeds General Infirmary or St Thomas’ Hospital. These regulations make these processes honest, in that when we embark on procurements, it will be for a good reason.
A related problem is that the legacy procurement rules have tended to lead to too much service fragmentation. We have seen examples where community nursing services have had to be tendered out but core general practice services have not, so getting the community nurses and GP practices working together has been much harder. One of the fragmenting consequences of the 2012 Act was that a lot of what had previously been NHS services became local authority-procured, and so sexual health services and health visitors were operating on a different procurement process through local authorities rather than through the local NHS. The Health and Care Act 2022 and these regulations overcome that problem. The NHS will still be subject to transparent and fair procurement, but it will now be much more flexible and proportionate.
The regulations are quite complex. Those noble Lords who have read through the materials may agree that it is fair to say that they will not command the attention of the pubs and clubs of Barnsley or Barnstaple, but they will make a huge difference to the way in which care is delivered right across the country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, I very much welcome these regulations. As he put it—in a very kind way—in essence they withdraw the wretched health Act 2012, which enforced competitive tendering on clinical services and, as the noble Lord said, was not only bureaucratic and costly but got in the way of integration and collaboration. Of course, the Explanatory Notes that go with this SI are very explicit in saying so. I noticed, though, that the Minister failed to mention the 2012 Act. In fact, the Explanatory Memorandum was just the thing my noble friend Lady Thornton used at the Dispatch Box as we sought to scrutinise the wretched 2012 Bill, which cost so much money and staff time and achieved so little.
I want to pick up one or two points that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, raised. The first is to acknowledge that there is a huge challenge for the procurement profession. I remind the House that I am patron of the Health Care Supply Association. I understand that the provider selection regime regulations come into effect in January, but these are ahead of the procurement regulations which come into effect in October next year. It is important that the Minister mentioned the guidance and I am very glad he mentioned the work that will be done by NHS England in supporting the service implement these regulations. However, I say to him that if you are trying to work out the relationship between the 2022 health Act, the 2023 Procurement Act, these regulations and the forthcoming procurement regulations, to a procurement manager sitting in an NHS trust this can be rather complex. The more help and guidance that can be given to those professionals, the better.
The Minister may well be aware that at the same time as procurement teams have been asked to implement this big change, they are having to generate short-term savings to meet the financial pressures in-year at the moment and actually cut their department operating costs. It is a short-term saving that may have long-term consequences, particularly as investing in procurement for the long-term value we wish to see enhanced in the health service makes economic sense. I point out to the Minister the recent announcement by NHS England that it is investing £600,000 in new commercial roles to unlock £1.5 billion of savings. That is very welcome, but we should be investing similarly in local and regional procurement teams as well. It is also important that the analysis behind the £1.5 billion savings is made available in order to guide the procurement function in the areas they need to be focusing on.
What is being done to support the skills, training and development of the NHS procurement and supply chain people? Will we invest in learning and development through organisations such as the HCSA and the NHS Skills Development Network to support upskilling and developing their functions? I commend the strategic framework for NHS Commercial, published only in September, and support the establishment of academies of commercial excellence—these are good initiatives—but you also need to support the people on the ground to do the job most effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said that there is a good balance in the regulations, because, while we want to get rid of the bureaucracy of automatic competitive tendering, as there is clearly no point doing it, we do not want to lose the opportunity of inviting innovative companies to play a part in the health service in the future. There is an issue around conflict of interest in the new structures. He will be aware that, around the table at integrated care boards, the chief executives of the local trust will often be in membership. In these regulations, and more generally, there are rules about how you mitigate that in a competitive process, but the decisions that ICBs make will sometimes be not to go down a competitive process at all—decisions, as I understand it, that those trust CEOs can be part of. I have had a briefing from Specsavers, which says that there surely needs to be some kind of requirement for ICBs, particularly for community services, to consider proposals from non-commercial providers who can demonstrate that they can improve value, quality of care and clinical outcomes. It is there that the conflict of interest issue arises.
How will value-based procurement be driven forward? In the draft PSR statutory guidance, “value” and “social value” are two of the national criteria for procuring health services. As I understand it, value-based procurement is about looking at which product is not only cheapest per item but best for patient outcomes, quality of life and avoiding relapses or unintended side-effects. I have been championing value-based procurement because in the long term it provides better value for money and better quality of what is being procured. The Minister has kindly agreed to meet me—I am grateful for that—but a statement from the Government on the importance of value-based procurement would be helpful.
Finally, I will ask the Minister about health technology. How far does he think these regulations support our vital health technology sector? I have been in discussions with ABHI about the potential that health tech offers the UK—it is fast—but there are worries that, in the new world, there are issues limiting the ability of many of these companies to be competitive, some of which are clearly to do with regulatory uncertainty. He will know of the issues with the MHRA’s performance. I pay tribute to the MHRA, but there is no doubt that it has resource issues—both money and staff—when getting things approved where they need to be approved. Coming back to Brexit, surely one of the advantages of having an independent regulator is that we can be seen as a place that, for medicines or medical devices technology, has a first-rate regulator that takes these processes through as quickly as possible. The problem, as he will know, is that there has been a blockage inhibiting innovative companies, so we really need to do something about it.
Overall, I warmly welcome the regulations. I thought that the Minister could have acknowledged a little more the failings of the 2012 Act, but we will pass on that. I certainly very much support the general thrust, but the procurement function in the health service needs every support it can get in understanding the new architecture and implementing it fully.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, this is an altogether weightier statutory instrument than the previous one we discussed, running to many pages and with lots of interesting new acronyms. The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hunt, have set out effectively the case for why the changes are necessary, in a kind of Birmingham pincer movement as I stand here in the middle. I also have ringing in my ears the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the previous statutory instrument, when she talked about a particular instance where procurement went wrong. We need to have that in mind.
It is worth putting a marker down now on the potential impact. We are talking about many billions of pounds of expenditure; how many billions is an interesting question that we will come to in a minute. The potential benefits are hundreds of millions of pounds of savings, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, pointed out, but we must acknowledge that there is a potential downside risk, which could be millions in fraud and legal fees. It is worth spending a moment as we debate the instrument to make sure that everything is being done to ensure that we get the upside but minimise the downside.
My first question is around the integrated care board members and conflicts of interest—something that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—particularly where they are not in a competitive tender situation, where we are talking about direct awards and most suitable providers. Once that decision has been made, there are some valid questions around what that means. Candidly, we do not want to create 42 ICB VIP fast lanes where people can talk to the ICB and somehow get themselves out of the normal procurement process when they should not be out of it. Therefore, there are risks at that level; we must be conscious of that. Given the roles that ICB board members have, and since these are local entities, it is likely that an ICB board member will have relationships with people in the local community who deliver services that will be subject to the tender.
My next question is about the variability and the number. It is flagged in paragraph 4 of the impact assessment that the expenditure over a period was
“estimated to be between £75bn-£380bn”.
I am not great at maths but that is quite a significant variability. It talks about how the £75 billion concerned procurement processes that went through the EU process and were notified, while the long tail of the other £300-odd billion concerned other procurements that were not notified. However, we should be able to get better information than that. One of my requests for the Minister comes with a suggestion: there should be a machine-readable database somewhere where all health and care procurement can be analysed and studied. I know that the department intends to do that but, actually, the best way for us to understand that we are getting good value for money is this: if anyone, whether a researcher at one of our excellent universities such as the University of Birmingham or another interested party, wants to be able to look at NHS purchasing data and can analyse it, they should be able to do so.
This seems to me to be a reasonable request to make of government: that information about procurement—including the status and how the contract was awarded, whether it was competitive or elsewhere—is publicly available and analysed by any third party who chooses to do so. The Government would benefit from that, as would individual NHS procurers, as people will analyse those patterns of purchasing and perhaps suggest something that they had not thought of themselves where they may be able to make more savings.
The final area that I want to cover is one that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, touched on: skills in procurement. I suspect that all of us who follow healthcare have seen the Health Service Journal article in October that talked about integrated care boards in the south-west of England paying £1.7 million in compensation for a procurement failure. Obviously, that is happening under the existing regime, but it is a strong warning sign that we need to heed what happens when we get this wrong. Again, the impact assessment helpfully talks about the litigation process and the different costs that may be assigned to each area. I think that we tend to underestimate these things. If anything, once you get into a litigation process, the pressure to settle and resolve it means that money is often thrown at the problem. This could mean a significant cost to the NHS if we get it wrong. The fact that we have a new process means that new risk is being introduced. What is being done around training? That comes in two aspects. The first is general awareness raising, which applies to everyone. Certainly, I have had experience in business of working for an American company where you are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, meaning that you go to prison if you try to bribe a member of a foreign legislature.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I bring more cheer to the Minister by adding our support for these regulations—I thank him for bringing them before your Lordships’ House today—because the provision of this statutory instrument is to define and give relevant authorities greater flexibility to procure healthcare services. This will, I hope—I know that other noble Lords also hope this—benefit patients and service efficiency by better integrating services. Like the Minister, I am pleased to note that the policy behind these regulations has been informed by both a voluntary impact assessment and an extensive consultation that received 70% support from 420 respondents; this is welcome news.
It is the view of the Opposition that the NHS should be the preferred provider of commissioned healthcare services, not least because it embodies not just a public service ethos but efficiency, resilience and democratic accountability. It is also the case, particularly in the short term, that, in order to treat NHS patients and bring waiting lists down, the independent sector has an important role to play where a service cannot be provided by a public body because the capability or capacity just is not there.
Your Lordships’ House may recall that, when the Health and Social Care Act2012, which my noble friend Lord Hunt described as “wretched” on several occasions, went through its various stages in Parliament, these Benches argued that relevant authorities should have the appropriate flexibility to award contracts, which was something for which the Act did not provide. As my noble friend identified, the competitive tendering requirements of that Act did not serve the NHS, patients or the public at all well. Therefore, where we are today with the provider selection regime, which does allow for this, is as long overdue as it is welcome, as is seeing that good sense, flexibility and efficiency will now apply.
During the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, these Benches also argued for the legislative provision to be made as outlined in these regulations. Although the Government did not take that on at that time, I am glad that the benefit of hindsight has prevailed and that the Opposition’s view, which was set out during the course of that debate, has now been set out in these regulations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, illustrated so well, these regulations recognise that it would not be an efficient use of resources in certain circumstances for relevant authorities to use competitive tendering, but that there continues and needs to be a procurement process that relevant authorities can and should use. As the Minister will be aware, concerns have continually been raised about the impact of the current procurement framework, which often places additional burdens on community and mental health providers in particular, where services have been much more likely to be subject to expensive and disruptive competitive tendering processes. I therefore welcome the alignment of the PSR’s aim with the spirit of collaboration within health and care systems, as well as the offer to commissioners and providers of a clear and transparent process by which procurement decisions can be made.
The PSR will offer a consistent model for both NHS and local government bodies to follow with regard to health services, and I hope that this will support local relationships and decision-making, as well as integrated care. However, it is important that national bodies engage with all organisations that will be subject to the new regime in an effort to smooth the transition to a new procurement framework.
I ask the Minister for more detail on how NHS England and the department will review the application of the PSR over the course of the next year to ensure that real-time feedback on the operation of the regime can be collected, as well as evaluated and, importantly, acted on as swiftly as possible. I make this point as it will be crucial to capture feedback on whether any difficulties arise for commissioning bodies in selecting which procurement process is the most appropriate across various different scenarios and circumstances, and whether any challenges arise for providers in the application of their approach.
My noble friend Lord Hunt emphasised the need for support, training and guidance—something that other noble Lords also emphasised. This is a point that the Minister would be well advised, as I am sure he is, to pay absolute attention to, so that we support those who work in NHS procurement and the NHS supply chain, not least because the combination of these regulations, other regulations and other Acts is something of a complex field. We should support and guide those who make the interpretation and the application, and, if necessary, adjust in real time any of that training, support and guidance. More information from the Minister about how this will be done will be extremely welcome.
I am aware that NHS Providers has worked with membership bodies for providers in the independent and voluntary sectors, the department and NHS England to make the case for the new regime to include a challenge function for decisions made by commissioning bodies to be reviewed and scrutinised if appropriate. Although the PSR panel does not have legally binding powers, does the Minister consider it appropriate to give providers some opportunity to challenge the application of the regime and raise legitimate concerns where appropriate?
As I said at the outset, I am glad to provide our support to these regulations. I hope that we can look forward to great improvements because of them in the years ahead.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords and welcome the support offered. I appreciate their understanding on my lack of comments on 2012 and all that. I also appreciate having the vast experience of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and wonder whether he could be here so that I can phone a friend on some of the questions we have, because I fear he may be far better qualified to answer a lot of them. I will take home the “Think like a patient, act like a taxpayer” mantra.
I think we all agree that, although this is welcome, it is complex. We are trying to set out an approach, knowing that really we want sensible people to act sensibly around the table and to co-operate with each other. We all know that it is very hard to put a rules-based system around that. As all noble Lords have mentioned, the training of staff in that is vital. I have some personal experience, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does, of many of the people in this space, and I have to say that they are very good people. My experience is obviously much more on the national level, but clearly it needs to be taken down to the local level as well.
I believe we are publishing the strategic framework for NHS commercial tomorrow. That tries to set out the importance of commercial capability, and the investment and critical skills required. It will be accompanied by a programme that sets out what upskilling needs to be done and a programme, with support from the Crown Commercial Service, that I hope we can effectively use to upskill in the way that we all believe is necessary.
To answer the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whenever you are trying to put in place a value-based system, for want of a better word, in terms of culture, you have to have those guard-rails around making sure that there are appeals processes and lessons learned. My understanding of this independent panel is that companies or providers that feel they have been wrongly excluded will have the opportunity to appeal directly. I have challenged them quite strongly on that, given my experience in this space, and asked how much a company will really want to be awkward. Often you know that if you are being awkward and challenging, that might make life more difficult for you in future, so there are some difficulties involved there. A lot of companies often ask whether that challenge is really worth it. Getting that right, with the panel, is vital, so that it is welcoming and open and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, says, there is that “lessons learned” kind of constant review. At probably the year stage, we will look to understand how it has gone so far and what we can learn from it.
Having been involved in quite a few start-ups, I am also very aware of the point the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made. Time really is money in these things; a regulatory process that is opaque or cumbersome is not very helpful. I acknowledge some of the issues the MHRA has had. That is what the £10 million investment behind it is trying to address. I know it is very much looking to act on this.
A very good example of that is what the MHRA is doing in the point-of-care space. One Brexit advantage that I have seen is the ability very quickly to set rules around point-of-care medicines, particularly around when you take a biopsy and then provide an individual patient with treatment according to that for a certain cancer. Clearly, if you follow the strict rules, you would have to be regulating that every single time, and that just would not work. The MHRA has introduced a sensible framework that tries to adopt an umbrella-type approach. I know that the MHRA understands the possibilities in this space and really wants to use this as an opportunity to show that we can be fleet of foot and leaders in that space from it all.
On the point raised about trusts sometimes having a conflict and the example provided by Specsavers, that is what the panels are supposed to be there for. It is important—I will check this out—that, in the rules, we are guiding the 42 ICBs on how they should manage some of those conflict situations and when they should put people aside. We have all managed it in our corporate and public lives, and there are rules about it. Just as we put the emphasis on noble Lords to declare interests and so on, clearly we must make sure that there are similar rules for the trust CEOs, but it is a point well made that we need to pick up. I look forward to going into some of these issues much more when we have the value-based procurement meeting shortly.
On how we can make the analysis available, I have seen a tool that the NHS has recently introduced which is very good in terms of being able to drill down straightaway and provide that analysis. That is a good base point. I will find out some more about how that needs to be tweaked, but there is a basic premise about making that information available—that is a sensible move. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, it should be used to arm providers with the ability to challenge the panels.
I welcome the input. Such is the knowledge base around this, I am happy to suggest that, in nine months or one year’s time, we have that round table where I will appreciate some of the skills here. We can ask how it has gone down so far. We can do that through a debate, but it is probably better done through a round table, so I would like to propose that so we can learn the lessons.
In summary, I welcome the points made and that noble Lords believe that this is the right direction, although it needs work along the way to make sure it stays going in the right direction and does what we hope it does. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Motion agreed.
Wine (Revocation and Consequential Provision) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 October be approved.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, leaving the EU gives us a unique opportunity to review our retained EU wine law to ensure that it better suits our domestic needs. The UK wine market was worth more than £10 billion in 2022 in off-trade and on-trade sales and the UK’s developing domestic production sector has attracted significant global investment. It is therefore vital to reform retained EU laws to give us the opportunity to boost growth and development in our domestic industry and to give it the capacity to tackle future environmental and economic challenges. To do this, the reforms that I am setting out to the House today will address a number of issues faced by our wine businesses. They will remove barriers, support innovation and simplify regulations to help to support growth in our wine trade and production industry, giving them the freedom to meet new and evolving demands while maintaining the high standards that consumers have come to expect.
First, the regulations will amend current importer labelling requirements. The instrument will remove a stipulation that imported wine must show the prefix “Importer” or “Imported by” before the address of the business responsible for importing that wine to England. It will mean that the general food law provisions relating to the identification of the responsible food business operator will apply to wine in the same way as they apply to other food products, without any additional importer labelling requirements in wine law on top of that. Changing importer labelling provisions means that businesses do not have to face unnecessary costs and bureaucratic administrative burdens. With approximately 1.3 billion litres of wine being imported into the UK in the 12 months leading up to December 2022, these burdens from inherited EU labelling rules must be removed. This Government will always stand with businesses to create growth opportunities.
Secondly, we will allow wines with a protected designation of origin to be produced from any permitted grape variety or hybrid variety rather than just the species Vitis vinifera. Permitting the use of non-Vitis vinifera species and hybrid varieties in PDO wines can bring significant benefits to both the industry and to the environment. Hybrid varieties often exhibit higher disease resistance compared to traditional Vitis vinifera varieties. The use of hybrid grape varieties can contribute to greater crop consistency and thus supply chain resilience. These hybrid grapes are often bred to withstand various climatic conditions and soil types, leading to more predictable yields. That predictability can mitigate the impacts of climate-related fluctuations and contribute to a stable supply of grapes, supporting both producers and consumers.
Thirdly, the instrument will remove the ban on the production of piquette, a wine-based beverage produced by adding water to grape pomace. Ending this ban will allow wine producers to create a new product offering using a by-product of the wine production process. This is an exciting and interesting opportunity that the Government want to provide to our wine producers.
The Government will also continue to support the thriving wine industry by enabling the blending of imported wine in England. This reform is permissive in nature, so take-up from the sector is voluntary. Our aim of allowing the blending of any wine in England will enable the wine industry to blend different varieties of wine from the same or various origins to achieve greater consistency in their products and to create entirely new products that suit consumer tastes. The Government are delighted that this measure also offers the opportunity for more British jobs in English wineries and bottling plants.
The Government are also keen to make the recycling of wine bottles easier in line with collection and packaging reforms. The instrument therefore intends to remove the mandatory requirements for foil caps and mushroom-shaped stoppers to be used in the marketing of sparkling wine. In addition to reducing waste, our aim is to make the production of sparkling wine more competitive.
The instrument will remove the wine certification scheme. The Government have listened to our wine industry and acted to remove unnecessary bureaucracy. The Government opposed the wine certification scheme policy as an EU member; now that we have left, we can seize the opportunity to determine our own laws. The instrument therefore intends to remove the wine certification arrangements. The current cost of the application process is £15 plus VAT per varietal wine. By removing the scheme, the relevant wine producers are avoiding that unnecessary cost.
I recognise that a majority of these first-phase reforms will apply only in England. However, the Welsh Government and Defra have agreed to pursue future reforms together, allowing these benefits to flow to the wine industry across both nations. As we have done from the outset, we continue to encourage Scotland to make similar reforms.
Together, the changes I have set out will liberalise the growing domestic wine industry and address several issues that our wine businesses face. They will remove barriers, support innovation and simplify regulations to help support growth in our wine trade and production industries. These proposed reforms give them the freedom to meet new and evolving demands while also maintaining the high standards that consumers have come to expect.
Our wine industry and producers support the changes set out in this instrument and welcome the flexibility it provides. The Government intend to bring further changes to allow the wine industry the benefits of leaving the European Union. This instrument is part of a broader package of reforms giving our thriving wine and alcoholic drinks sector greater flexibilities that will support it in the future. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting the regulations before us this afternoon; overall, they are a very positive contribution to the wines and spirits industry. I declare my interest: I chair the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board, of which the wines and spirits trust is a member. I was very grateful for its briefing as part of my preparations for this afternoon.
I have just a couple of questions for my noble friend. While it is welcome that the regulations will benefit both consumers and indeed the wine industry, my noble friend mentioned that there are one, if not two, further statutory instruments to come before the House in the next six months. Would it not have been better to do all three statutory instruments together? I understand that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which prepared a report in advance of the regulations being laid before us this this afternoon, expressed concern about the lack of a uniform approach and level playing field across Great Britain, and the way the department has introduced and promoted the instrument.
I welcome my noble friend’s having reached an agreement between the department and the Welsh Government. Can he tell us the status of the agreement between his department and the Scottish Government in that regard? Also, it is particularly welcome that, as my noble friend said, only one label will be required, so we are in fact restoring the situation that existed before Brexit. It looked at one time as though two labels would be required on one bottle, one for consumption in the EU and one for consumption in the UK, and it is very good news indeed that these labelling changes have gone ahead in such a sensible way.
With those few remarks, can my noble friend explain the thinking behind having one statutory instrument before the House now, with two to follow in short order? Also, can he explain the precise situation with the Scottish Government regarding the instrument before us this afternoon? However, I welcome these regulations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we have spoken previously about similar reforms. There was an SI in 2021, for example, and during that debate we on these Benches said that it was important that the Government work with, rather than against, the industry as they continued to make the reforms. So, these regulations are welcome, and it is good that the Minister in his opening remarks confirmed that the department has been working constructively with the industry. We note that the industry has been very supportive of the regulations before us today. Clearly, that support is good and welcome, and there are many positives in what the regulations lay out.
However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee laid out pretty lengthy concerns, which need addressing. They were largely about the operation of the internal market and, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned, in particular the Welsh and Scottish Governments, who signalled opposition to the changes. I note that the Minister talked about moving forward with the Welsh Government, but the noble Baroness made important points about the situation regarding Scotland, so I would be interested to hear his response to those concerns.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Baroness for their views on this instrument. I believe we all recognise the importance of the wine industry. These changes support this aim and will ensure greater flexibility. I recognise that a majority of these first-phase reforms will apply only in England. As I said earlier, the Welsh Government and Defra have agreed to pursue reforms together, allowing these benefits to flow to the wine industry in both nations.
We are working with Scotland. Of the wine we drink in this country, I think only 1% is produced here. Most of that is produced in the south-east of England but a wine industry is now emerging across the United Kingdom. We want to encourage this. It shows farmers and land managers adapting to a changing climate and opportunities for a home-grown industry that we want to see flourish. The changes to importer labelling are required to ensure that the industry avoids unnecessary costs. Revoking importer labelling provisions in wine law will result in the application of the general food law provisions relating to food business operator labelling. This is a change I assure noble Lords that both this Government and the wine industry wish to see.
I hope that it will get the support of the House. Our desire is to improve the sustainability and innovation of the wine sector through enabling PDOs to be applied for in relation to wines made from hybrid grape varieties. This brings long-term benefits to both industry and the environment as well as increasing consumer choice. Blending wine also offers this opportunity, in addition to improving consistency and reducing waste. A serious point made by the Wine and Spirits Trade Association is that the blending of wine is something that the industry wants to do. It is in the consumers’ interest, it reduces waste and it improves quality. It allows for the same flexibility that vineyards have to supply wine that the consumer wants.
The Government also wish to free our wine industry from inherited EU bureaucracy by removing the certification arrangements for non-GI wine marketed with a variety and/or vintage indication. Again, these reforms aim to remove additional costs and administrative burdens on producers. The improvements this Government have made on wine will provide consumer confidence and sustainable growth, encourage frictionless trade, improve our environmental impact and, most importantly, remove unnecessary burdens.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked why we are doing this now and then tabling a further two statutory instruments later. The answer is that it is important to get this one agreed before the end of the year, when otherwise the transitional labelling rules will end. We want all food business-operated rules to be in place by 1 January. The other two statutory instruments are slightly more technical in nature and require a bit more work. We are working at pace to bring those forward in the new year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also referred to labelling. We want to make sure that labelling is simple and straightforward. We have sought to reduce the burden on producers but still offer the correct labelling. This requirement will allow, for example, the words “a blend of wines from Australia” or “a blend of wines from Chile and Argentina” to be on the bottle. That gives enough information to the consumer, but also secures what we believe is a proportionate requirement on the industry.
I think I have addressed all the points raised. I hope the House will approve this instrument.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Substitution of Cut-off Date Relating to Rights of Way) (England) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Substitution of Cut-off Date Relating to Rights of Way) (England) Regulations 2023 were laid before Parliament during the prorogation period and are due to come into force before the House has sufficient time to scrutinise them following debate on His Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech; notes the lack of public consultation on the policy implemented by the regulations; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to outline whether and how they expect the existing backlog of applications relating to unregistered rights of way to be cleared before the deadline contained in the regulations.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have laid my Motion to Regret because I believe that proper records of our public rights of way are so important. We know that public rights of way encourage recreation and tourism. In my county of Cumbria, they generate much-needed income in a very rural area. They are also an integral part of our heritage. We also learned, particularly from Covid, of the important role that being in the countryside has in the prevention of ill health, improving well-being and reducing loneliness.
The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 first required local surveying authorities, which are now the county councils and the unitary authorities, to prepare official records of public rights of way. However, the problem has been that those records are incomplete. The Ramblers has provided research—I thank it for its briefing—which suggests that there may be as much as 41,000 miles of unrecorded historical public rights of way in England.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 included provisions for a cut-off date of 1 January 2026 for registering those rights of way. That was subject to some exemptions, after which any remaining unrecorded paths would be lost. The purpose of the regulations we are debating today is to move that cut-off date from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2031. My Motion regrets that the regulations were laid before Parliament during the Prorogation period, which we consider to be pretty poor form. They are also due to come into force before, we think, the House has had sufficient time to scrutinise them, which is why I wanted the debate today, as much of our time since Prorogation has been taken up with the debates on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. Can the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, say why the decision was made to lay the regulations during this time?
My Motion also expresses concerns about the lack of public consultation on the policy that will be implemented by the regulations. Can the noble Lord explain the lack of public consultation on a matter that is clearly of great interest to many people? Finally, my Motion calls on the Government to outline whether and how they expect the existing backlog of applications relating to unregistered rights of way to be cleared before the deadline contained in the revised regulations.
I also express our support for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which welcomes the extension of the period for officially recording footpaths but regrets that no permanent solution has been found. I look forward to his comments on his Motion.
Clearly, an additional five years to apply for historical rights of way to be added to the definitive map is welcome, as the process requires extensive and time-consuming research, which we understand has largely been undertaken by volunteers. I would therefore like to speak a little more in detail about our concerns about the current backlog of applications. Estimates suggest that in England there could already be over 10,000 applications currently waiting to be processed by authorities, with some waiting 20 years to be determined. We believe that it is inevitable that the number of applications will increase significantly in the run-up to 1 January 2031.
It is significant that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made it clear in its report that Defra should have included information about the local authority backlog in the Explanatory Memorandum and criticised the lack of information about the impact. I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to one or two of the comments made in that report. First:
“The Explanatory Memorandum … states that there will be no impact on business, charities, voluntary organisations or the public sector”.
However, as local authorities are responsible for assessing and determining the applications, I cannot understand how there can be no impact.
In addition, the report noted that the backlog of applications was likely to increase in the run-up to 2031, as I said. It talked about a submission that had been received from the Open Spaces Society,
“which, while not opposing the Regulations, questioned Defra’s assumption that there will be no significant impact”.
Can the noble Lord explain why it was decided that there would be no significant impact—how was that conclusion reached? The Open Spaces Society suggests that setting back the cut-off date
“will have a very substantial impact on charities and voluntary bodies”.
Regarding local authorities, although the cut-off date cannot be postponed beyond 2031 in general, the provision enables a further postponement, without limit, in relation to the former county boroughs, which were excluded from the operation of Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That duty was given to them only by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 clearly envisaged that it might be necessary for those places to be granted a longer period to prepare their maps, but this opportunity has not been taken.
I mentioned my county of Cumbria, where I was a county councillor. We have an enormous number of footpaths that need to be managed and recorded. Why has no provision been made for a later cut-off date in relation to the county boroughs? How do the Government intend to support the work of local surveying authorities and the voluntary sector to make progress in researching, submitting and determining applications? This is a huge amount of work.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled a parallel regret Motion but, before I get to that, I will say what a pleasure it is for those of us who have followed this through the long night—many years—to see the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, back in his place. He has been with us for many of these debates, and he and I have debated many times in the past. I know he has not been in the best of health, and I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we wish him back here in full health ASAP.
When I joined your Lordships’ House in 2000, one of the first Bills I was involved with was the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as it then was. I remember a short debate on footpaths—it was before I made my maiden speech, so I did not participate—during which the Labour Government Minister pointed out that there was a 25-year timetable during which we could finish this task. The universal reaction to this was, “Well, that’s job done, isn’t it?”. This just shows how wrong we all were then. During the intervening 20 or so years, I have had the chance to raise, and support other Members of your Lordships’ House raising, this important policy issue. So I find myself echoing the famous words attributed to a football manager: “It’s déjà vu all over again”.
We heard a magisterial speech from the noble Baroness, and I will not repeat what she said. One issue that could usefully be picked up is the work of the stakeholder working group, which was an attempt to draw together all the people who have an interest in footpaths. It was set up in 2008 and reported unanimously in 2013. On 20 January 2022, nearly two years ago, I put down a Question for my noble friend on whether the Government would set a date for the commencement of the provisions of that working group. I received the famous words that
“the Government intends to lay legislation as soon as reasonably practicable”.
That was two years ago, and it will shortly be seven or eight years since this group reported unanimously. The Government really must decide that we can use this information to try to pull together the many people who have an interest in this area.
My regret Motion is rather more specifically focused. I thank my noble friend most sincerely for his five-year extension. Of course, I am disappointed that there has been something of a U-turn in government thinking, but half a loaf is better than no bread. My Motion points out that while we have put off the potential car crash for five years, it is still unlikely, given the glacial progress we have made over the last 20-plus years, that we will solve the problem in five years from now.
Before I go any further, I need to put on record, as I have previously, that I am a member of the Ramblers and have been briefed by it, as has the noble Baroness. As a brief background to Members of your Lordships’ House who are not familiar with how bureaucratic the system is, I will give a short personal example.
My family investment company owns a trivial amount of agricultural land in Shropshire, a county that features quite high on the list in the Ramblers briefing. Our family policy is that if an adjoining field becomes available, we will make an offer for it. So it was that a couple of years ago we purchased a field with a footpath that went diagonally across it. Every year, in accordance with the regulations, after the crops had been planted we went on a quad bike with a sprayer on the back and sprayed out the two-metre wide strip, through the middle of the crops, that followed the line of the footpath. Obviously, you lose a certain amount of land from that but, equally, you are asking people to walk across a ploughed field and a sown field that is muddy, wet and so on. The corners and sides of the field have headers, two-metre strips of grass that protect the hedgerows and the wildlife in them.
It occurred to us that it might be a good idea, and better for walkers, if they could use the strips rather than the mud, so we discussed it with Shropshire Council. I have only praise for its help in the work it did with us, which was very constructive and helpful—but, my goodness, the process you have to go through. This small change affected one cottage. I spoke to the people at the cottage and together we sent in a letter from them saying that they had no objection. There was silence.
Some months went by, and we were then told by the legal department of the county council, “Sorry; it wasn’t in the right form to meet the regulations”. So back we went with another set of letters. The trouble is that this goes on and on. We started this in February this year, and we are told we are unlikely to have a determination, a final resolution, before early summer next year. That will be a year and a half just to redirect, not to remove or add to, a footpath in a way the county council thinks is beneficial for walkers.
The time and effort and diversion of precious resources to carry this out seems disproportionate. It seems to me really important that we discuss and tackle the one size fits all that we have built into the regulations. The Defra plan—here I quote from the excellent report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—is that it will
“speed up and streamline existing bureaucratic procedures”.
That is a critical decision. It needs to be brought in, and quickly, if it is to have any measurable impact over the next five years.
At the heart of my regret Motion is concern about performance and how we instil a sense of urgency in this issue. How do interested parties monitor the progress—if any? We have this debate today and my noble friend, in winding up, will no doubt give us enthusiastic and encouraging words that we will all be pleased to hear. We will then go on our way, and the danger is that the status quo will prevail.
How might performance—actual and relative—in different local authorities be measured? How, as a result, might a certain amount of pressure be supplied to the laggards? There is a wonderful new body called Oflog—the Office for Local Government—which might have an important role to play. I shall quote a couple of lines of the Written Ministerial Statement from July, when its establishment was announced. It said:
“Oflog is a new performance body focused on local government in England. It will provide authoritative and accessible data and analysis about the performance of local government, and support its improvement … By collating, analysing, and publishing existing data about the relative performance of councils, it will help councillors and the public have the information they need to scrutinise more effectively … it will ensure council leaders can compare themselves against their peers and find examples of good practice to learn from; and it will allow central Government and their partners to identify where there might be challenges and a need to step in to give support, where appropriate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/23; cols. 35-6WS.]
It seems to me that Oflog hits all the hot buttons as far as footpaths and their preservation are concerned. If, as I fear, my noble friend the Minister is unable to say in his reply that he is already on the case and Oflog is the answer, could he give the House undertakings that he will examine the possibility of Oflog being used in this case; and that he will write to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated in the debate as to what progress has been made and what the results of those discussions were?
I conclude by saying, as is common ground among all of us, that the network of footpaths in England and Wales is a unique and irreplaceable resource. We surely have to use the next five years to establish an approach that will preserve it for future generations.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for their regret Motions. My view is that the Government have got themselves in a bit of a mess with this statutory instrument, which was laid during Prorogation and has not had time to be debated in the House.
Obviously, the funding promised in the original Labour Government Act to be given to voluntary bodies has never really materialised. These reforms should have been delivered and monitored long before 2026 to inform enactment but endless delays have prevented this happening. Although most bodies welcome the extension of the proposed cut-off date, most bodies also oppose the implementation of Part II as a whole. Defra’s decision to bring into force the relevant provisions in Part II with immediate effect and without any agreed exemptions for now is not a welcome development.
The regulations that have already come into force extend the cut-off date by which time applications have to be made to local authorities to register historic rights of way for footpaths and bridleways from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2031. This reverses the previously understood position that the cut-off date would be repealed altogether. After the new date, any unregistered historic rights of way in England will be extinguished unless they are subsequently found to be exempt from the cut-off date, but these measures are yet to be announced.
Defra has argued that it does not expect any significant impact on business, charities or local authorities, but there is already a considerable backlog of applications and many more cases are expected to come with the new extended cut-off date. Each case costs many thousands of pounds and, as we have heard, the process for this is extremely complicated. The new cut-off date will have considerable impacts. Among the 21 local authorities for which data is available, there are 4,000 applications for a definitive map modification, 80% of which are likely to be pre-1949 rights of way. Based on calculations, it has been estimated that these backlogs alone could take 20 years to work through.
The number of applications will continue to increase the closer we get to the final cut-off date. The additional costs on local authorities, voluntary bodies and landowners alike will be considerable—estimated to be as high as £40 million. How will the Government ensure that the additional financial burden for this extension is paid for? How will they ensure that the existing backlog of cases is dealt with and that there is sufficient capacity in the system to meet the projected future applications? What happens to any cases in the system that are not processed before the cut-off date? When will clarity be given on the grounds for the exemptions that Defra says will be put in place? Footpaths are a precious national resource; we must work to ensure that none is lost, never to be replaced.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for his kind words, which I much appreciated. I would like nothing more than to be able to be back here in the House on a regular basis. I miss the House and everyone here very much indeed.
I want to take this opportunity to add my voice to the disquiet that has already been expressed about these regulations, which are now in force and about which, as has been said, there has been no proper consultation despite the impact that they could have on so many members of the public with the loss of access to potentially thousands of miles of historic rights of way.
In an Answer on 27 May 2022, the Government stated that they had
“decided to take forward a streamlined package of measures to implement rights of way reform including repealing the 2026 cut-off date to record historic rights of way, as well as giving landowners the right to apply to divert or remove rights of ways in specific circumstances”.
No reason was given in that Answer for the change in policy, welcome as it was, to repeal the 2026 cut-off date. Likewise, no reason is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations as to why the Government have gone back on that policy of repealing the cut-off date provisions and are instead introducing a new cut-off date of 1 January 2031. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the change in circumstances between the Answer on 27 May 2022 repealing the cut-off date and now that has led to the complete change in announced policy on the repeal of that cut-off date.
The Explanatory Memorandum does not even admit that the Government are going back on the policy announced on 27 May 2022 of repealing the 2026 cut-off date. Yet it goes on to say:
“No formal consultation is required or been undertaken … There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”
or “on the public sector”. The Ramblers, of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said he was a member, is a charity. It has 100,000 members and, through volunteering, works hard to keep our rights of way, including footpaths, open. They will be affected by these regulations and the reinstated cut-off date by which to register the estimated 41,000 miles of unregistered historic rights of way or risk losing them, as compared with the impact of the policy announced by the Government on 27 May 2022 to repeal the cut-off date. Likewise, local authorities may be stretched resource-wise to cope with the potential workload that the newly imposed cut-off date, as compared to having no cut-off date, will in all probability generate. Are the Government really saying that these regulations, on which there has been no consultation, will have no significant impact on organisations and bodies such as the Ramblers and their volunteers or on local authorities?
It is a question I hope the Minister will answer, because it also raises the issue of how often the Government meet organisations representing the public on access and rights of way issues, such as the Ramblers, the Open Spaces Society, the Byways and Bridleways Trust and the British Horse Society. How many times have the Government met these and similar organisations, for example, either collectively or individually, over the last two years? I would be grateful for an answer.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has also commented on these regulations, saying:
“We take the view that it would have been helpful to explain the current backlog of applications in the explanatory memorandum. While the planned rights of way reform may streamline the application and determination process, many local authorities are nevertheless likely to receive a significant number of new applications, adding to the existing backlog and to current resource pressures”.
On the basis of Defra’s own incomplete figures, there are already 4,000 applications for a definitive map modification order waiting to be determined. However, this figure covers only 21 local authorities. Will the Government say how many local authorities are potentially affected? Estimates from the Ramblers suggest that in England, there could already be over 10,000 applications waiting to be processed by authorities, with some, as has already been said, waiting 20 years to be determined.
It is inevitable that the number of applications will increase significantly in the run-up to 1 January 2031, based on the increase in applications researched and submitted for determination between 2018 and 2023 that have already been made in many local authority areas. In Lincolnshire, for example, that increase in applications is from 56 to 378 with 1,934 potential miles of historical rights of way to be researched and applied for by 2031, largely by volunteers, against a background of a pending decision, apparently, by the Government, to apply a higher threshold for applications for adding unrecorded pre-1949 rights of way. It looks as though going back on the commitment to repeal the 1 January 2026 cut-off date is but one part of a government programme to load the dice more heavily against volunteers and short-staffed, underfunded local authorities, seeking on behalf of the public to register an estimated 41,000 miles of historical rights of way. And still, the Government maintain there is no need to consult on these regulations.
A stakeholder working group was, I believe, established by Natural England in 2008 and involving Defra, to advise on what could be done to reform the processes governing the application and determination of historical rights of way. The group comprised a balance of interests: user groups, landowners and local government. The consensus reached by the SWG was put forward to Defra and the reforms enshrined, as I understand it, in the Deregulation Act 2015. However, the reforms required detailed regulations to be enacted, which still have not been, eight years on. It was always agreed by the SWG that the package of reforms should be delivered as a whole: all sides, users and landowners, for example, accepting that they had had to give way on some things to deliver the consensus.
The SWG, I understand, still exists. It is chaired by Defra officials and is still advising on the detail of the regulations. These include, crucially, the paths that will be exempt from the deadline, but also the right for landowners to apply for diversions. I understand, though, that the former Secretary of State, Thérèse Coffey, took some unilateral decisions of late which break the consensus achieved. The exemptions regulations, for example, would no longer include those paths that are unrecorded yet are currently in use by the public. Why do this? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the past and present role and position of the stakeholder working group, as well as the recent decisions by the previous Secretary of State in relation to the consensus achieved by the SWG.
I made reference to paths and historical rights of way that will apparently be exempt from the deadline. How many miles of rights of way, in how many local authority areas, is it expected that these exemptions will cover, and what kinds of historical rights of way are we talking about? Not knowing what impact these exemptions will have on the organisations and bodies involved in identifying the estimated 41,000 miles of historical rights of way not yet on local authority definitive maps makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess any reduction in their potential workload.
Although the cut-off date would not be postponed beyond 2031 in general, a provision, I believe, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, enables a further postponement, without limit, in relation to the former county boroughs which were excluded from the 1949 Act and given a duty to prepare definitive maps and statements only under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock addressed that issue. The 2000 Act appears to envisage that it might be necessary for those places to be granted a longer period to prepare their definitive maps and statements, but this opportunity has not been taken. Will the Government say why?
The Government’s Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 includes a clear commitment to ensure that everyone lives within a 15-minute walk of green and blue spaces, but 38% of people fall outside that threshold. Completely changing government policy to repeal the cut-off date and risking losing tens of thousands of miles of unregistered rights of way will do nothing to help achieve that 15-minute walk policy objective. Instead, it will deny people routes that they could have used to access green and blue spaces close to home.
I have asked a number of questions about government policy and its impact, and about changes made and the reasons for them, and would be grateful for answers from the Minister, either today or subsequently in writing.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will take the same tack as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and add my voice to his, following his welcome return to his place in this Chamber.
Unless I have misunderstood the proposal—if I have, the explanation is well buried—why proceed with a cut-off date on the registration of these long-forgotten rights of way at all? They are an ancient and important contribution to our social fabric in England. For a thousand years and more, these rights of way have evolved into a wonderful network of publicly accessible walks and bridle paths, which are much enjoyed by a large and growing cross-section of society.
The objective of the 2000 Act appears to be a desire to create
“a final and complete record of historical public rights of way”.
There seems to be no reason for not adding to maps as old, long-lost or forgotten rights of way come to light; simply update the records. As we know, this Government agreed to drop the cut-off date and, for no good reason, wish to reintroduce it. Scotland and Northern Ireland do not want a cut-off date. There is no explanation for why we need this. It sounds as though it is the result of a horse deal between different lobby groups of landowners and farmers. Where did the public fit into this discussion? I do not think that they have a voice or that they have been heard at all. I do not deny that irresponsible walkers in the countryside are a nuisance, but they are a small minority. Without access to the countryside, those who abuse it will never have a chance to learn the rules of good behaviour and learn to treat this resource as something so precious and special.
There has been comment on the backlog awaiting registration. This is a resourcing problem that can be dealt with, but the Act is not about resourcing; it should be about access to this national network. Defra says that it will
“speed up and streamline … bureaucratic procedures”
for the recording process. That is good news, but it is not a reason to prevent new registrations. The Explanatory Memorandum states, as we have heard more than once, that there will be no impact on businesses, charities, voluntary organisations or the public sector, but there is no mention of human beings. What about the impact on them—citizens, the public and society as a whole? Does Defra not credit this greater good?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and particularly to listen to the powerful and incisive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I seek to add to the content of the debate rather than to repeat what has been said, but I could not resist rising to support entirely the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is not often that your Lordships’ House sees the two of us aligned, but it reflects the fact that, all around this House, every speech has expressed great regret, not just in technical but in real terms, about the direction that the Government are taking on these public rights of way.
I will very briefly set this in historical context. Since the election of Margaret Thatcher, 10% of what was public land in the UK has been sold into private hands. If we look back to centuries before that, it is one long tale of enclosure, of the public being excluded from more and more land. The real tragedy of the commons is that they were stolen from the people. Today, we are not talking about ownership but about rights of way: the right to walk on our own land. Maybe that path up the hill towards the church was once how people visited a family grave. Maybe the path between one village and the next was how courting couples got together and how, historically, families were created. We might make different uses of those rights of way today, but they should still exist. This country is sometimes referred to as a property-owning democracy, yet 40,000 land millionaires, 0.06% of the population, own nearly half our land.
We are in a situation where people have rights which are threatened with being cut off. I pick up one point that was highlighted in the excellent Ramblers briefing. As the Government are presenting this to us, it was never intended that paths in current use would not be cut off, yet our current arrangements are that this could be happening. These days with social media and mobile phones—I am probably not the only one with a walking app that often records the route that I took in various places—there may well be a great deal of data indicating that footpaths are in use. However, I invite your Lordships to consider for a second, as many others have referred to, how difficult it would be for volunteers and small local organisations to collect and collate all that data to provide the proof that is needed. That is not something that will happen quickly. We have lost so many rights. Let us not lose any more.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support these Motions from a particular perspective. Back in 1993, I was first elected to Suffolk County Council. Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself chairing the rights of way committee, a position that I held for some years. With all the experience that I gleaned, I can do nothing but agree with all the comments that have been made tonight.
When I was first learning about rights of way, I came across a summing-up by Lord Denning in which he said that nothing excites an Englishman so much as a footpath—I always thought that said rather a lot about Englishmen. Nevertheless, what I learned pretty quickly from that is that you have the coming together of two polar opposites. On the one hand there is the right of access, often historic, that people want to exercise, and on the other, “This is my land, it is private and I do not want anyone on it”. These are often irreconcilable. However, I also learned very quickly that, as public bodies and as legislators, it is not our job to pick a side but somehow to find a way of bringing them together. This is what saddens me about current proposals: they do not do that; they are partial and have come down on the side of the landowners.
The stakeholder working group, which other noble Lords have mentioned and which brought together local authorities, landowners and user groups, was able to come up with a consensus report. It is worth reflecting on how nigh-on impossible that must have been, and yet the stakeholder working group did that. That ought to be a gift to the Government, to say, “Here is a package on which all the stakeholders agreed”. Yet the Government have taken one piece of that and ignored all the rest, despite the conclusions of the group that
“implementation of the proposals in full is crucial to preserving the balanced nature of the package”.
It is a real pity that, all this time later, we have not moved; in fact, this is a massively retrograde step.
As we have heard, we do not have information about the exemptions from the cut-off date. There are some really important categories of rights of way here. Many paths in urban areas have never been on a definitive map and yet are used all the time. There are paths which are already in use. Where I take issue with the speech, with which I otherwise agreed, from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is that they are often not long forgotten and ill-used; many of them have been used for hundreds of years and still are but just happen not to have been recorded. It would be tragic if they were to be lost. Then there is the backlog of which we have heard: what is the status of those for which applications have already been made?
I want to finish by agreeing with noble Lords who share my disbelief at the Explanatory Memorandum, which says there will be no significant impact on the voluntary or public sectors, because that is palpable nonsense. Local authorities, as we have heard, already have a massive backlog and are hugely strapped for cash. If you are running a local authority and you have limited legal support, are you going to put it into childcare or public rights of way? That is the reality that many of them are facing. All that will happen is that the backlog will get larger. Who is putting in these claims? They are being put in by volunteers from various user groups. In all the years I chaired the rights of way committee, I never saw a specious claim. Every one of them had been immaculately researched, often over many years, and although occasionally we would disagree on the point of law or its interpretation, they were made in good faith and deserved proper consideration. How volunteers are to carry on working against this sort of deadline, and produce that quality of work, defies belief.
I urge government to prioritise the regulations governing these historical paths and the exemptions from the cut-off date, and to set out how government funding can be used to support the work of both local authorities and the voluntary sector, if we are not to lose them for ever.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I want to support the Government on a couple of points, which I know the Minister will find surprising. Is it just me, or is it cynical to suggest that the date for the cut-off was set not for after this Government, nor for the next Government, but for the Government after, which always gives the impression that we have moved to the point where it is in the long grass and nobody is thinking about it?
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about the 2000 Act, and I remember being part of the debates when we discussed that in 2000. There was great hope at that point that there would be money pouring into the rights of way from the Labour Government, but that sort of dissipated. I very much hope that the Minister can raise with his officials whether there could be discussion with the national heritage fund about coming forward with some funding, because it is not going to come from local authorities and the volunteer groups are going to find it difficult to push this forward.
I want to speak on this because I am one of those very rare individuals—one of the landowners that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about: a rapacious landlord in the north of Northumbria. The success I have had recently is introducing a new right of way, in relation to higher-level stewardship. I give a note of caution to anybody who goes down that route, which is that we agreed the right of way on a map. This summer I decided to actually follow the right of way, as set out by Northumberland National Park. The first half a mile is absolutely fabulous, through bucolic pastureland. However, you then hit a stile, and if you go over the stile and follow the path, you go down a near-vertical cliff face, which is almost lethal. In fact, it is totally lethal because it is covered in bracken. If you manage to get to the bottom of this without breaking your ankle, you hit the next helpfully placed marker, which directs you straight through a bog, which my children used to call a “welly-eater”—a bog you get half way through and then realise it has sucked your welly off and you will never see it again. After that you get to the most beautiful site on the riverbank, before you then have to think about going back the other way. I was told by the local authority that I could change it, but that it would probably be a harder process than taking the route in the first place.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for introducing these Motions, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is in her place and did not contribute to this debate, but I take the opportunity to wish her a very happy birthday.
The Government are committed to increasing access to nature. The environmental improvement plan sets out an ambitious commitment, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for everyone to live within a 15-minute walk of green or blue space, and to reduce other barriers that prevent people accessing it. My Secretary of State feels very passionately about this whole debate and, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, got me and various others in, when I had responsibility for access at Defra, to drive forward an agenda that coalesced in the Agnew commission. A lot of fresh thinking is now taking place and breathing new life into that, and he is really committed.
This is part of a much wider debate, and I just want to put this on the record. We have nearly completed the 2,700-mile King Charles III England Coast Path, a product of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, which we firmly support and are proud to have delivered on our watch. We are delivering a £9 million levelling up parks fund to improve green space in more than 100 disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the UK—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised—and delivering the £14.5 million Access for All programme to make access to green and blue spaces more inclusive. There are much wider issues around well-being, the social prescribing agenda and the success we have had through our farming and protected landscapes grant schemes, which have seen many new miles of footpaths in some of our most amazing landscapes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I sense that my noble friend has reached his peroration. Could we just go back to Oflog? I absolutely accept his good intentions and what he has told us, but we know that we will leave this Chamber, that things will move on and that this Office for Local Government will give those of us who are interested in this topic a chance to chase the laggards, because there will be information, if Oflog has this as part of its remit. Could my noble friend look at this and come back to those of us who have contributed to the debate with conclusions as to what he has found out?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I noted his point about Oflog. I will write to him with a detailed reply and convey his sensible suggestion to my colleagues at Defra. I hope they will be able to take that forward because it is a good suggestion.
I am conscious of the time, but I know there is concern about resourcing. I have talked about local authorities but, on funding for voluntary bodies, we recognise and value the important work carried out by the voluntary sector over many years to identify and apply for historic rights of way to be legally recorded. We want to continue the good working, particularly at a local level, between organisations such as the Ramblers and the land managers and the local authority through local access fora to get these issues resolved in a timely way.
A concern was raised about exceptions. Regulations to except certain historic rights of way from extinguishment will be laid as soon as possible. Officials are currently working with stakeholders to complete these regulations as part of our wider package of rights of way reforms.
There was some interest in what exactly is going to be excepted. We have committed to introduce regulations that will except unrecorded historic rights of way from extinguishment in a number of different ways. This will include all rights of way subject to applications that have not been concluded before 1 January 2031, rights of way in urban areas, and those that appear on the list of streets or National Street Gazetteer that are shown as maintainable at the public expense. Where the recorded width of a historic right of way is less than the actual true width, regulations will ensure that the width necessary for the continued safe and convenient passage of users will be saved from extinguishment—a key concern of many campaign groups.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I am not a rambler and I do not walk on footpaths nowadays, but I fail to understand why the Government are prepared to extinguish some unrecorded rights of way. I find that very odd: you will have some exceptions but there may be many that are extinguished. I fail to understand, from what the Minister has said, why the Government are doing this.
Lord Benyon (Con)
This was a product of an Act that was passed many years ago. There was a cut-off date of 2026 to give certainty, because otherwise this will roll on and on. It is also for people to be able to understand the complications in certain areas, such as biosecurity and safety. In the past, many footpaths went through farmyards, which are now not safe places for walkers to go, so this is also to be able to divert those paths to where they are safe, and protect stock from issues related to that. But the key point is about creating certainty; that is what we seek to do. By 2031, we should be able to get most of those historic rights established. I hope I have been successful in getting that point across, but I am happy to follow this up with meetings or further correspondence with noble Lords.
We recognise the benefits that our rights of way reforms will bring, and are working to complete and lay the necessary secondary legislation as soon as we can. Officials will continue to work closely with key stakeholders, including Members of this House, to ensure that all sides will benefit from these reforms.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a point about the cut-off date; there are approximately 4,000 applications for definitive map modification orders waiting to be determined by local authorities, most of which are applications to recorded historic rights of way. We expect the volume of applications to increase up to the cut-off date, which is why we have committed to ensuring that all applications remain live after the cut-off date until they are concluded—a key concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The reforms we are introducing will help to address the backlog, making it faster and less expensive to resolve historic rights of way applications. Commencing and extending the cut-off date now has provided certainty to all parties, both that the cut-off date will have effect and over when it will apply. By extending the date to 2031, we have provided an additional five years to submit these applications. We fully recognise the importance of regulations specifying exemptions from extinguishment, and we are committed to introducing these as soon as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the additional financial burden. I think I have addressed that. This will be a continuing concern for local authorities. We recognise that, but we hope that there are existing resources available to suit this. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many local authorities are affected. All local authorities in England are affected—all 317 of them. The stakeholder working group meets monthly and has all parties of interest attending. It is chaired by a senior Defra official, and Ministers take close interest in what they bring forward and have been key to the debate surrounding this.
I recognise that a great many other points were raised. I do not believe I have the opportunity to answer them all in detail, but I will reply in letter form, if I may. I thank noble Lords for their attention. I hope that what I have said has persuaded the Members who tabled these Motions of this Government’s commitment to greater access and to seeing historic paths recorded.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I particularly welcome my noble friend Lord Rosser, and listened to him speak with such passion and authority today.
When the Minister started, I thought perhaps he had listened to the debate and seen the light, as he seemed so keen on rights of access and preserving public rights of way. It was disappointing that he then went on to not acknowledge the challenges facing local authorities and voluntary groups to manage the task ahead of them. On the consultation point, I recognised in my speech that the cut-off date could not be postponed beyond 2031, but consultation does not have to be just about timing. It could have looked at exemptions and resources, and considered that as part of a wider consultation on the matter. But I hope the debate will enable the Minister to focus on the task ahead and keep a close watch on progress, because that is what we all want. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Substitution of Cut-off Date Relating to Rights of Way) (England) Regulations 2023
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
That this House notes the laying of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Substitution of Cut-off Date Relating to Rights of Way) (England) Regulations 2023, welcomes the extension of the period for officially recording footpaths, but regrets that no permanent solution has been found to enable the preservation of this important national asset.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:28 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 86 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 September be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2022-23 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for attending this debate. The first of these instruments, the Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023, sets out the affirmative decision made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on the Home Office’s application to use ionising radiation, also known as X-rays, as a scientific method of age assessment for age-disputed individuals subject to immigration control.
The second instrument, the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2023, has been laid by the Home Office to specify scientific methods of age assessment, namely analysis of X-ray and MRI images of certain body areas. By specifying scientific methods in this instrument, a decision-maker will be required to take into account a refusal to consent to the specified methods without good reason as damaging to an age-disputed person’s credibility.
On the use of X-rays, I remind noble Lords that the Ministry of Justice, as the justifying authority, has determined the practice justified under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.
A regret amendment has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, against both statutory instruments, and therefore the debates have been grouped. The Ministry of Justice has made the justification decision independently from the Home Office, as required by the 2004 regulations. I am sure noble Lords will understand that I cannot speak to this justification decision, as it is imperative that the justification authority is functionally separate from all other persons concerned with the promotion or utilisation of the practice. However, I can speak to the process the Ministry of Justice undertook to make this decision.
I turn first to that instrument. Under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, the Lord Chancellor has the powers as the nominated justifying authority to determine whether the individual or societal benefits of this practice outweigh the health detriments, and therefore whether it can be justified. Following a thorough statutory application, consultation and decision-making process, the justifying authority has determined that the Home Office’s proposed practice was a new class or type of practice and that this can be justified, subject to the following conditions.
The first condition is that scientific age assessment involving ionising radiation is limited to radiography of the third molar and/or of the hand and wrist only. The use of computed tomography, or CT, scans for the purposes of assessing age is not permitted. The second is that the results of radiography of the third molar and/or of the hand and wrist must be used to assess only whether there is more support of the claimed age of the age-disputed person, or the age that assigned social workers have assessed them to be following a Merton-compliant age assessment. A likelihood ratio approach must be used to compare the weight of evidence.
The Home Office has committed to ensuring that all exposures are appropriate under the relevant legislation. The Home Office is also committed to exploring the viability of non-ionising scientific methods of age assessment, with the aim of eliminating the use of ionising radiation in age assessments if and when the effectiveness of such alternative methods is validated. The justifying authority notes this commitment and encourages the Home Office to cease using X-rays when alternative methods are validated.
The Lord Chancellor wishes to thank the consultees for their detailed and wide-ranging contributions in helping him make his decision, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough scrutiny of this statutory instrument.
I turn now to the Home Office instrument—the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2023. These regulations are being introduced to improve our current age assessment process, which is under pressure from rising numbers of age disputes, and relate to the introduction of scientific methods of age assessment. Since 2017, there has been an upward trend in the number of unaccompanied children entering the UK. In 2019, 3,775 unaccompanied children applied for asylum. In 2022, this had risen by 39% to 5,242. There has also been a rise in the number of age disputes; between 2016 and June 2023, there were 11,275 age disputes raised and subsequently resolved following an age assessment, of which nearly half—49%, 5,551 assessments—found the individual to be an adult.
Age assessment is a complex and difficult task. Many unaccompanied young people claiming to be children arrive in the UK without official documentation. While some are undoubtedly under the age of 18, in many instances it is not clear-cut. It is an unfortunate reality that some individuals misrepresent their age to gain an unfair immigration advantage. The public would rightly expect us to strengthen our processes accordingly.
The introduction of scientific age assessments is intended to improve our age-assessment system by providing additional biological evidence to aid better informed and more thorough decisions on age. Scientific age assessment will be one piece of evidence used alongside the existing Merton-compliant age assessment process, which is a holistic, social worker-led assessment. Importantly, the UK is one of very few European countries that does not currently employ scientific methods of age assessment. These regulations pave the way to the UK being more aligned with international practices.
This instrument specifies scientific methods for age assessment purposes, which are magnetic resonance imaging of the clavicle and the bones of the knee and radiographs of the lower wisdom teeth and the bones of the hand and wrist. These images will be used to assess the skeletal and dental development, or maturation, of the bones and teeth. These methods have been recommended by the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee.
Once scientific methods have been specified, where an age-disputed person refuses to consent, without reasonable grounds, to the use of those methods as part of the assessment of their age, a decision-maker must take into account that refusal to consent as damaging the age-disputed person’s credibility. This is referred to as “negative inference”. The damage to credibility included in this instrument is only for the purpose of deciding whether to believe any statement they made that is relevant to the assessment of their age, not for deciding the person’s credibility in their wider immigration claim.
The Home Office considers negative inference appropriate and proportionate to deter individuals who deliberately misrepresent their age in order to game the system. A refusal to consent to a specified scientific method of age assessment without reasonable grounds would not automatically preclude the individual being considered a child. That refusal would still need to be taken into account alongside other relevant evidence as part of a comprehensive, holistic age-assessment process by social workers.
Noble Lords should also note that there has to be reasonable doubt about an individual’s age for them to go through the age-assessment process and be reassured that those who are clearly children will be identified at the initial age-determination process at the border.
I should note that the Supreme Court judgment in relation to the UK’s agreement on the relocation of individuals to Rwanda bears no impact on the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations. Protecting genuine children, preventing abuse of the immigration system by those who knowingly misrepresent their age and improving our asylum system overall remain a priority for the Government.
I look forward to hearing the views of this House on the instrument before us today. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Brinton
At end insert “but that this House regrets that (1) the Regulations are premature as the policy is still under development, (2) it is unclear whether a person can freely consent to the specified tests, (3) there is no defined mechanism for the Secretary of State to monitor and review the policy, and (4) neither an impact assessment, nor costs associated with the Regulations, have been presented to Parliament for scrutiny; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to withdraw the Regulations until the policy has been developed in full and an impact assessment and costings have been provided to Parliament.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have laid a regret amendment to both the Motion on the Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations and the Motion on the Immigration (Age Assessment) Regulations. I did not do this lightly but believe that the Government are contradicting themselves in moving ahead with legislation that medical and dental experts say should not be used yet. Despite substantial discussions on amendments during passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, many of which were supported across the House, when faced with the evidence on whether medical evidence, such as X-rays of wrist bones and third molars, was reliable, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth—I am pleased to see him in his place—said on 12 June at the Dispatch Box:
“I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords that the regulation-making power will not be exercised until the science is sufficiently accurate to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1814.]
So, can the Minister please explain what changes have happened in the science world in the past six months to change the Government’s approach on this?
Further, there is no provision in the SI for future monitoring and review of the policy. The Explanatory Memorandum for the age-assessment SI quotes the contested teeth and bone measurement and states:
“As per the AESAC report, the Home Office will not use the scientific methods to determine an age or age range, but rather use the science to establish whether the claimed age of the age disputed person is possible. This will be done by determining which hypothesis the science is more supportive of; the hypothesis that the assigned age by the social worker is possible versus the hypothesis that the claimed age is possible”.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 55th report for the 2022-23 Session criticised both sets of regulations. It states:
“The Government did not provide an Impact Assessment or any estimates of the costs, stating that ‘the policy and design are still under development’. This is not the way in which a policy should be made; it should only be brought forward once its costs and wider impact have been analysed”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling her regret Motion, which sets out so well why these regulations should be withdrawn. Having challenged the proposals to use X-rays in the sensitive matter of age assessment in both recent immigration Bills in the early hours of the morning, I find it a relief to be debating the matter today at a civilised hour. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—a fellow veteran of those debates—very much regrets that she cannot be here in time to speak but she has authorised me to speak on her behalf. Some of what I say will repeat points that have already been made but they are important and bear repetition.
It is unclear to me why these regulations are being brought forward now, given that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Home Office regulations states that
“the policy and design are still under development”
and gives that as a justification for the lack of an impact assessment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out. This clearly did not impress the SLSC, which described it as “sub-optimal policy-making”. It suggested that we might wish to press the Minister on why this approach was taken and to provide a clear indication of the costs and wider implications for health service provision. As the Minister will have read its report, no doubt he is briefed to provide a response, although the Minister in the Commons failed to do so when that point was raised.
The committee was similarly unimpressed with the lack of real consultation. In its written questions to the Home Office, it asked various questions about what the Home Office described as engagement with key stakeholders. The response simply said,
“the MoJ to answer this section”,
but answer came there none in the MoJ statement other than reference to a statutory consultation to which it had just three responses. Can the Minister please enlighten us now about the responses to the engagement with key stakeholders and tell us who they were?
One point raised in response to the MoJ’s statutory consultation that is worth noting here is the poor representation from the dental community on the Age Estimation Scientific Age Committee, considering that dental X-rays are one of the proposed practices. It was the British Dental Association that first contacted me with regard to the age assessment clauses in the then Nationality and Borders Bill. It is just one of a number of professional bodies that have raised concerns—notably, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA and the British Association of Social Workers have also done so—together with children’s and refugee organisations. They are surely stakeholders so what engagement was there with them? Why do their concerns appear to have been ignored?
What particularly struck me when we debated the clauses giving rise to these regulations were the ethical concerns raised by the BDA and the RCPCH at the prospect of the use of X-rays on children and young people without any medical justification. Those concerns have not been allayed. One line of justificatory argument used by the Government and the Minister is that the use of X-rays is in line with common European practice. However, the Helen Bamber Foundation, whose earlier work was so important in challenging the Government’s figures on the number of adults posing as children, has questioned that line of argument, as the SLSC notes.
According to the foundation, a growing number of legal decisions in Europe have held that the scientific methodology is not sound enough to be relied on. It quotes the Council of Europe as concluding this:
“There is a broad consensus that physical and medical age assessment methods are not backed up by empirically sound medical science and that they cannot be assumed to result in a reliable determination of chronological age”.
The CoE points to evidence of their harmful impact on the physical and mental health and well-being of those undergoing age assessment and thus advises that their use
“should be reduced to a minimum”
and should
“remain a measure of last resort”.
Although the SLSC did not feel able to assess the strength of the arguments around international comparisons, it expressed its expectation that the Government take into account any changes in the legal position or practical implementation elsewhere, given that they have cited international approaches in support of the policy. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will do so?
Another argument used in the Commons debate on the regulations was that Merton assessments are very time-consuming, yet it has also been emphasised that scientific methods, which all are agreed cannot provide a definitive answer, will be used alongside Merton assessments; presumably that will make the whole process even more time-consuming. Forgive me for my cynicism but I cannot help but fear that, ultimately, the plan is to replace Merton assessments with so-called scientific methods. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that that will not be the case?
A critical issue mentioned by the noble Baroness, the SLSC and those submitting evidence to it concerns consent. In its response to the committee’s questions on the subject, the Home Office pointed out that the regulations are made under the Nationality and Borders Act, not the more recent Illegal Migration Act. However, that is not of itself sufficient to assuage concerns. Although it is welcome that the Home Office does not feel ready to go ahead with a lack of consent having automatic consequences, the Children’s Commissioner is pressing for an assurance that the power will not come into force at all.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I know the convention of the House is that I should say it is a pleasure to follow two such brilliant speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, but it is not actually a pleasure—it is intimidating; one fears the contrast. Mine will be an amateur contribution after those of two professionals.
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report, particularly because it draws our attention to the evidence the Home Office gave in answer to its questions. The answers from the Home Office struck me as a little unsatisfactory and, in one or two cases, astonishing. With your Lordships’ permission, I will give just one example, on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the absence of the impact assessment. Here was the Home Office’s answer:
“The Home Office has not produced”
an impact assessment
“due to the uncertainties regarding wider implementation”
of scientific age assessment
“within the end-to-end age assessment model”.
If you can understand that, you are smarter than me. But it gets better:
“It is the Home Office’s view to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans, especially given the controversial nature of the policy. As policy and operational development continues, the Home Office will take a view as to when it is appropriate to produce an impact assessment”.
Well, that is nice of them. If you are buying a house, it is quite a good idea to have the survey done before completion of the deal. If one is buying shares, it is quite nice to see the prospectus for the sale of the shares before one makes the investment. And the purpose of an impact assessment is to accompany the legislative proposal and inform the legislator.
It is, of course, very important that the Home Office should monitor how these age assessments work out, but that is a completely different question from the need to provide an assessment ab initio of what the impact is expected to be. For the Home Office to say that it is better
“to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans, especially given the controversial nature of the policy”,
is frankly absurd.
I have four questions for the Minister. The first is really a question from the Children’s Commissioner in the evidence we have seen: can a child truly consent to a procedure if they know they may be punished if they do not consent? The Children's Commissioner thinks not. The young refugee, threatened with X-rays, might be bewildered, traumatised, frightened, and may not understand English; he may not understand the questions put to him or anything of what is going on. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee advised in January that
“no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”.
Why have the Government ignored what the committee said?
My second question is: how safe is the procedure? The committee is clearly uneasy. It says:
“The use of ionising radiation must be limited, with the ultimate aim of eradicating it”.
That is the position of the Government’s official advisers. The Council of Europe says that that the use of radiation for age assessment is
“in conflict with medical ethics and potentially unlawful”.
My third question is: how reliable is the procedure? As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has mentioned, the British Dental Association does not like it at all. It believes that assessment using X-rays is inaccurate and unethical, and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA and the BASW all share that concern. As the noble Baroness also said, the Government themselves are aware, and admit, that the science is inaccurate. In their evidence to the committee explaining why they are not using the draconian automaticity procedures in Section 58 of this year’s Illegal Migration Act but are instead using the provisions in last year’s Bill, with the negative inference provision, they say that the procedure is not sufficiently accurate to permit using the 2023 Act. If that is so, how can it be accurate enough for using the 2022 Act, with the negative inference result detrimental to the interest of the refugee?
My last question is: who is to be responsible for carrying out this procedure? Last week, there was some alarm among local authorities when the Minister for Immigration seemed to suggest that the responsibility would fall to them. Who is to be in charge and if it is the Department of Health and the NHS, are they relaxed about the extra workload coming their way? An impact assessment might have looked into that.
The Government should shelve the regulations until they can: tell us how they are to work; conduct a proper public consultation; provide a normal impact assessment in advance; and answer our questions. I should have said at the outset that I used to be a trustee of the Refugee Council but I mention that now. Of course, I strongly support the regret amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, in strong support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the others who have already spoken in this debate, I would argue that this is primarily a matter of science. On the idea that this is a scientific assessment, it is not. We are using instruments developed by science but the assessment is certainly not a scientific one. I have six questions for the Minister.
First, with regard to bone age and the assessment, can the Minister give us the range for any particular ages? What assessment has been made of the confidence limits and the error bars in this? Without those statistics, you cannot possibly have such a test. I do not believe that these have been published but perhaps I am wrong and he can tell us otherwise.
Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the preceding situations are with those immigrant children? For example, what diet were they on before they came in? Did they have normal calcium in their diet or were they deficient in it? Did they have other issues which might have changed their bone age? That is quite possible.
Thirdly, what is their hormonal status? As we know, some children have pituitary tumours which will change their bone age and these would not be discovered by an X-ray of the wrist or, necessarily, of the lower part of the skull and the jaw. There would be no reason for that child to have symptoms, so that would have to be dealt with as well. There are many reasons why age changes, not least because of mitochondrial activity. Is the noble Lord aware—he might have realised this—that about a year and a half ago we had a Select Committee inquiry on ageing? The ageing process starts very early in life and among the things we had were the hallmarks of ageing. Horvath’s clock, which includes mitochondrial age, for example, has 353 different points which give rise to ageing, yet we still cannot determine somebody’s age accurately within about five years on any of these bases. Of course, it is better with X-rays but certainly not something which we should really be considering in this situation. The diet of that child is most important.
I also suggest to the noble Lord that we have used an assessment in pregnancy which is now regarded as fallible. For a long time, we looked at bone age of babies in utero; for example, by looking at the length of the femur. We now know that all those publications, which resulted in us again and again delivering babies at a certain time, are totally flawed and those assessments are no longer used. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has great experience in this area, is not here but he and I absolutely agree on that. Again, we say that we have to be very much aware of bone assessment.
There are two other issues which have not come up in this debate. I am going to be quick. The risk of ionising age radiation is serious. How do we know that a child might not need another X-ray later on for a medical condition, in which case there will be an accumulative risk, or perhaps has had ionising radiation before getting to the United Kingdom or on their way here? That is one of the issues.
Lastly, the issue of informed consent has not been fully described here and we need to discuss it. The autonomy of the child, or the parent on behalf of the child, is critical here. What does the noble Lord suggest is done if, for example, they X-ray the baby or child’s wrist and find a tumour in the bone? Do they then proceed to undertake some form of medical treatment? Suppose that that tumour is totally benign and could be living there indefinitely, without any harm to the child, but the child then has surgery which would not actually be necessary. That is not just a pretend risk. We really have to consider the risk of scanning people without clear medical evidence.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I follow all the previous speakers, including that consummate professional, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I have some similar questions for the Minister. I will try to edit as I go so as not to be too repetitive.
I started by wondering whether the Home Office could possibly be in a position to bring forward and implement these instruments. The GOV.UK website shows the Home Office as still seeking to recruit members to the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee: a behavioural scientist with expertise in interview techniques and someone with expertise in children’s social services. Is that recruitment still going on? The website shows the closing date as having been December 2022. These areas of expertise are surely crucial.
In this contentious area, does bringing forward instruments fall within the “doing everything it takes” message? How far have the Government got in preparing for these biological techniques? A few days before Prorogation, I asked a Written Question about the estimated cost of using X-rays, MRI and any other scientific methods provided by the legislation. The Written Answer, which I was told was a holding answer—because we were of course running out of Session—was:
“The Home Office does not yet hold this information. Work is ongoing to determine the level and type of capacity required to support the imaging service”.
Then on 24 November, a few days ago, I received what was described as “a full response”. I was surprised that it was followed up by letter but here it is. I will not repeat the two sentences I have just quoted, because they are exactly the same. The letter goes on:
“It is anticipated that the service will then”—
that is, after the ongoing work—
“be subject to a competitive procurement process, which will provide final clarity on costs”.
No wonder there is no impact assessment giving costs.
On Report on the Illegal Migration Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, as my noble friend said, talked about the regulation-making power not being exercised
“until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the science and analysis are sufficient to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood”.
He also said that the Government will
“continue to seek scientific advice”
to ensure the regulations
“are based on a firm evidential basis”.—[Official Report, 5/7/23; col. 1239.]
Can the Minister say whether the chief scientific adviser to the Home Office and AESAC have provided that basis? One must assume that the Secretary of State—either the Secretary of State in office when the SIs were published or the current one—was appropriately satisfied.
The interim committee in October 2022, which is where the website took me, dealt with proposing an age range and assessing whether the claimed age was possible. I am repeating what my noble friend has said because it is a really important point. The committee also recommended that
“no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”
to procedures—if that is the right term, because it is certainly not “treatment”. Then, of course, legislation we passed through Parliament allowed for both.
During the passage of the same Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, in response to my noble friend Lord Paddick, that refusal to consent can be treated in a variety of ways,
“which will be described in the regulations”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1817.]
Where can we find those ways? They are not in the version of the regulations I have been reading. He also said that it is
“crucial that we disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1812.]
I note the word “disincentivise”; we have heard a lot about deterring immigrants. However, he then said:
“I certainly would not compel any child to participate in age assessment”.—[ Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1815.]
The problem is that the consequences of refusal are very close to compulsion.
During the passage of the then Nationality and Borders Bill, some of us had a very helpful briefing on age assessment arranged by the Home Office and chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, who was then, as she described herself, the interim chair of the interim committee. We were given assurances that all information would be triangulated, so I ask for an assurance that the introduction of these techniques does not give them any particular status compared with—to quote an email from the Home Office I received following the briefing—
“views from a psychologist, or any other person with a role in the age-disputed person’s life”.
That speaks for itself.
During the passage of the two Bills the House discussed—not always at a user-friendly hour—the issue of consent linked with capacity and ethical considerations. By definition, the techniques do not benefit the child so it will be interesting to hear how they can be ethical. The House also discussed the culture, background and ethnicity of the young people seeking asylum in the UK who may be subjected to these techniques. I was glad to see that the interim committee report made it clear that socioeconomic factors and ethnicity affect the timing of development.
Home Office guidance acknowledges that
“physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age” .
The committee report said that “any methodology should” minimise
“any health risk, whether physical or psychological”,
and that there are many reasons
“not to give consent for biological age assessment … not linked to concealment”.
Is the Home Office guidance being changed to fit the current policy? I doubt that many adults, were they in the same situation, could give informed consent. They could well be too traumatised to do so. We should also be aware that a good many asylum seekers come from countries where “medical procedures” are an instrument of torture.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, of course in restrained language, was pretty damning. It pointed to the absence of the impact assessment, which has been referred to. The Explanatory Note to the instrument says that
“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”
as the reason for not producing an assessment. Surely impacts are foreseen; they must be foreseen, including impacts on resources, with staffing and equipment diverted from the NHS for one. If the Minister cannot give a cost or range per person examined, can he give a unit cost for each application of each technique? Can he help the House on whether the health staff are available and whether they are willing to implement these techniques?
The scrutiny committee said that it is “vital”—not a term I can recall seeing before in such a report—
“that the Government closely monitor and review the policy and adapt it as necessary”.
The committee is quite right in saying that
“The House may wish to question the Minister”
on monitoring and evaluation. We do. When can we expect this and what can we expect by way of keeping Parliament updated?
The committee badges the regulations as “politically or legally important”. They are politically and legally contentious too. The techniques are “fraught with difficulty”, to use the words of the Advocate-General for Scotland during debate on the first of the two Bills. The difficulties are not solved by these regulations, which is why we cannot support them.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I promise that I will be brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for moving this regret amendment and thank all those who have spoken so far and so well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for pointing out that this is not science; it is the use of scientific instruments. My two concerns relate to consent, as many have spoken about, and to the workforce.
We have spent a long time in the health service over the last couple of decades to improve the way we consent and how people are able to give informed consent. Most of us going for tests and operations will have pages of documents that we will be taken through and then sign. I have concerns around whether people will truly consent. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said that
“informed consent is fundamental to all medical practice, and by definition must be free from duress … This directly opposes both the principles of informed consent and the recommendations set out by the independent body commissioned to look at the policy—the Age Estimation Scientific Advisory Committee”.
Questions of capacity have also been raised here. Who will make the decision on behalf of a child if they have no legal guardian present? I am concerned about not only the issue of the X-rays but the impact of being asked to do this psychologically, emotionally and mentally. Could the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to safeguarding and support during and after medical examinations, especially in relation to consent and capacity?
My final point relates to capacity. The House does not need to be reminded that the health service at present—both the estate and workforce—is under pressure. The question is: who will take the X-rays? Will it be radiographers or other trained professionals? Where will the kit be that will be used? I also have a concern around those professionals undertaking this. Has the department consulted with professional bodies, such as those for radiographers? Has the Home Office developed plans for capacity? If so, has this been done in partnership with the NHS and professional bodies?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has not risen, I first declare my interest as the chair of the General Dental Council. I want to make two very brief points, which I do not think have been addressed by the discussion so far. First, the question has to be answered on who is going to carry this out. Are they going to be registered professionals? I should say, incidentally, that in the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I am on the amateur breadth of this, so I am not speaking as a professional. If they are a dentist, they should be registered by the General Dental Council. If they are a radiographer, they should be registered under the HCPC.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Radiologists should be properly registered. Will that be carried out by people who are professionally registered? If they are professionally registered, are they carrying this out as part of their profession or as an agent of the Home Office? If they are carrying it out on behalf of somebody else, how does that square with their professional obligations and requirements? Again, that has not been clarified. Can the noble Lord clarify that point, and if it is not going to be carried out by a regulated professional, is it legal for it to be carried out by somebody else? It is not legal for somebody to carry out something which purports to be dentistry if they are not a registered dentist, and the same will be true for radiographers. These issues which should be clarified.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I will raise one point which has not been raised. This Chamber should not be legislating when legislation is not required, and the Government have not set out what the problem is and what the statutory instrument will solve. The Minister was very clear in describing the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, and he was also very aware of the numbers where there was a dispute over age. He then went on to say that by using the Merton assessment, nearly 49% were deemed to be adults and 51% children. That does not seem to be a system in disarray, but a system that weeds out those who deliberately try to deceive regarding their age.
The key question to determine the problem which the Minister has not answered, and which I would like him to answer, is: of that 51% since 2016 who have been deemed to be children by the Merton assessment, how many have then been found to be adults? That is a key question because if that figure is minimal, there is no need for the statutory instrument because there is not an age assessment problem to be solved.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, some things have been spoken of in this debate, but what is absolutely clear is that in every element the Government have provided more and more uncertainty. We have before us a set of regulations which are clearly down to a Government seeing themselves in a hurry to get things done in a way which might satisfy certain elements of its own party, but which is nothing to do with the case in question, which is about age assessment.
I just want to ask the Government four questions arising from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Government have signed up to and to which we are party. First:
“An age assessment should only be conducted if it is in the best interests of the child”.
Perhaps the Minister in replying can explain to us why this is in the best interests of a child.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why scientific methods are used to assess age in, among other countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands.
Lord German (LD)
The information provided by the Council of Europe, which of course does not reflect the notifications we have received from the Government, describes the legal cases which have been taken against the proposals made by some of those states and which have in fact been found to be in contravention of the very convention I am talking about.
Secondly:
“Age assessment should not take place without the child’s and their guardian’s informed consent”.
How will that consent be provided and how is it meant to be independent?
Thirdly:
“Children undergoing age assessment have a right to be informed of their rights during the procedure, the purpose, steps and duration of the procedure, and to be assisted by a legal representative and/or guardian”.
What steps are the Government taking to provide that support for these children, so we are clear about it?
In conclusion, “sub-optimal” is the word provided by our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Everything that has been said about what we have in this House today suggests that it is below optimal.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will discard most of my speech because all the points I was going to make have been made articulately. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, if she chooses to test the opinion of the House and I thank her for the thoroughness with which she introduced her amendment to the Motion. I agree with her that this SI is not yet ready to be put on the statute book.
The Minister set out the figures, which have been repeated a number of times as the debate has progressed. A number of questions were put to him about the issue of consent, the state of the European Convention on Human Rights, and answering the questions put by the Children’s Commissioner and other bodies which have expressed their extreme concern about the measures being put forward by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, just intervened, giving examples of European countries which do some form of tested age assessment. However, this is of course a contested area in many European countries; we are not unique in this being a politically contested issue.
Noble Lords also made a point about the review mechanism that the Government propose to put in place so that, as this progresses—if indeed it does progress—the Government can keep an open mind about how effective it is and whether further changes in assessment methods need to be made. However, I want to conclude on a different point which no other noble Lord has made, and to talk slightly wider than the SIs themselves.
Last May, with my noble friend Lord Coaker, I visited the old RAF Manston airfield and the landing site, Western Jet Foil, in Dover harbour. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for facilitating that visit. What became apparent to me then is that all the political debate, including today’s debate, is about the vast majority of young men who are potentially claiming to be under 18, and the impact that has on them. That is the totality of the political debate. However, there is another group of young men, which was drawn to my attention, who appear to the officials to be under 18 but are claiming to be adults. They are doing that because they want to work, either legally or illegally. Many of them will have started working in their home countries when they were 14, and they will have had a few years work under their belt and are coming here to better their prospects.
What tracking is there of those young men? I have raised this issue with the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and as far as I am aware, there is no tracking of them. Whether they are more likely to abscond once they go into the adult system or whether the Home Office tracks them at all, it is a significant, not an insignificant cohort. It was drawn to my attention when I made that visit and I will be very interested to hear the noble Lord’s answer, maybe by letter, on how those young men are tracked.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting and insightful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her regret amendment, which I will obviously refute, because the introduction of scientific methods of age assessment is an innovative approach for the UK. It is entirely right that the Government take action to disincentivise individuals from deliberately misrepresenting their age in order to game the system, as well as to safeguard and promote the welfare of genuine children, who have a need to access children’s services. Scientific methods provide additional evidence and create a more consistent system, and there is nothing inhumane about those objectives. I hope that noble Lords will consider each regulation on its merits, and I will do my best to answer all the questions. If I miss any, I will endeavour to write.
The question of accuracy has come up. Determining the age of a young person is an inherently difficult task. The Home Office is aware that there is no current single age-assessment method, scientific or not, that can determine an individual’s age with precision. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, there is a risk of harm to both the age-disputed individual and to the public interest through misclassifying children as adults, or adults as children, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to—I will come back to this. That is why the UK Government are taking steps to improve the robustness of the age-assessment process. Scientific age assessment will be completed alongside the current Merton-compliant age assessment, and the age-assessment process will remain a holistic assessment. The well-being of the individual will continue to be at the forefront. I am happy to say categorically to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that scientific methods will not replace, but will be used alongside, Merton. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked me how accurate these methods are. For X-rays, I do not know—I will find out—but for teeth X-rays it is two years either side. I will come back to this in more detail in a second.
On international comparators, to which my noble friend referred, the Home Office believes that the negative credibility inference in respect of someone’s claimed age is necessary, logical and proportionate where a person refuses to undergo a scientific age assessment without good reason. It is important to note that negative consequences, such as automatic assumptions, are applied with variations by a number of ECHR signatories, including the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The UK is an outlier as one of the very few European countries that do not currently employ scientific methods such as X-rays as part of age assessments.
On our plans for operationalisation, the Home Office wants to specify these methods as soon as possible to pave the way for the introduction of scientific age assessments. The increasing number of age-disputed young people presents safeguarding challenges and puts additional pressure on children’s services, which should be accessed only by genuine children. This is a new and complex process that the Government need to get right. The full plans for integrating scientific age assessments into the existing processes will be set out in good time, and full guidance and assessments will be provided. For now, the Home Office has welcomed the report from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee and is making clear steps to proceed with the recommendations and consider others.
Consent was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. To address the concerns regarding consent, I assure all that no X-ray or MRI image can or will be taken without informed consent from the individual. The Home Office will ensure that the individual has capacity, fully understands the process and is communicated to in a child-friendly and clear way. Interpreters will be available to assist with understanding information, and documents will be translated into a language the individual understands. If the individual refuses to consent to a scientific age assessment, they will continue to proceed with the current Merton-compliant age assessment. Those who are clearly children will be identified as part of the initial age assessment and not included in the cohort for an age assessment.
It is the Home Office’s policy to refer individuals for an age assessment only when there is some doubt about their age—specifically, where that individual’s physical appearance and demeanour do not very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18. This threshold is set purposefully high to ensure that individuals can be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, only those whose ages are in genuine doubt would be referred for this scientific age assessment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has repeated a statement he made in his introduction about it being only the clear-cut cases. Can he explain how, in the year to August, in just one city—Leeds—30 children arrived, having been assessed as adults by the Home Office on initial arrival, and were immediately identified by people in Leeds as children? Will those children not face the potential of ionising radiation and other medical procedures as a result of this regulation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not familiar with the case that the noble Baroness refers to, so I am afraid I will have to look into it.
Individuals will be assessed for their fitness to undergo scientific age assessment, which will include consideration of both mental and physical health. The individual will not undergo scientific age assessment if they refuse to consent. Reasonable grounds for refusal will be set out in guidance and considered on a case-by-case basis. Appropriate adults, translators and others will be available to support the young person. If a young person is assessed as lacking the capacity to consent, they will not undergo any such methods and a negative credibility inference will not be taken.
Provisions under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 allow for decision-makers to make a negative inference. As I have said, the Home Office considers negative inference to be proportionate to prevent individuals deliberately frustrating the system. There is precedent in other legislation of negative consequences being applied where an individual refuses to submit to a medical examination. For example, an individual may be asked to undergo a medical examination to determine their eligibility for employment and support allowance. If they fail to undergo such an assessment, they will be treated as ineligible. Therefore, consent can still be informed and freely given even if there is a negative consequence for a refusal to give that consent.
It is important to note that taking a negative inference from a refusal to consent does not result in an automatic assumption that the individual is an adult. Rather, the negative inference is taken into account as part of the overall decision on age. A decision-maker can still assess an individual to be a child following the holistic age-assessment process, even if they refuse to consent to scientific methods without good reason.
I will answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about monitoring and review. The Ministry of Justice will monitor and review the Home Office’s use of X-rays approved by this instrument and compliance with the conditions as per Regulation 10 of the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.
I would like to reassure the House that, as this is a new practice in the UK, the Home Office will monitor and review the policy to evaluate its success and make any changes necessary for its effective operationalisation. The Home Office will not do this in isolation but will continue to seek advice from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee and key stakeholders to support the process. Quarterly datasets including age disputes are already published on GOV.UK and, when scientific methods of age assessment are introduced, the Home Office will ensure that the relevant statistics are published alongside them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, questioned whether these regulations should be made before a full impact assessment and costings have been laid before Parliament. As I stated, scientific methods will be integrated into the current age-assessment process. A full impact assessment has not been produced at this point as it would not provide the rigour of economic value required at the early stage. The Home Office recognises the importance of transparency—please be assured that a full impact assessment will be prepared when appropriate, as my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister said in the other place.
I will go into the costs in a little more detail. As I have said, we could not provide the rigour of economic value that the impact assessment would require. Instead, the Home Office has produced an economic note that pertains to the narrow focus of the SI—the impact of introducing the specified methods for age-assessment purposes. We have decided not to publish this yet, as the information provided would be isolated from wider plans; it is the Home Office’s view to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans. As policy and operational development continue, the Home Office will take a view on when it is appropriate to produce the full impact assessment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am rather surprised that the Minister has repeated the bits of the Home Office written evidence that struck me as a bit odd. The clue, surely, to the timing of an impact assessment is in the name: impact. It should be there at the start. We are not terribly interested in an impact assessment two or three years down the line. We would have liked to have one today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point; obviously, I will take it back to the Home Office and make sure that it is well understood.
On the use of X-rays, I remind the House that the Ministry of Justice has determined the practice is justified under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Justice made this decision to justify the practice independently from the Home Office, as they are functionally separate on the policy of age assessment as required by the 2004 regulations.
Your Lordships will know that X-ray scans are commonly used in the UK for medical purposes by doctors and dentists. Although age assessment is for non-medical purposes, images will be taken by qualified professionals who are trained to minimise exposure to ionising radiation and any other potential risks. We expect all professionals to abide by their own professional guidelines, as well as any set out in Home Office guidance, but medical professionals are required by the relevant legislation for ionising radiation.
The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee suggests that any risk associated with this low level of exposure to ionising radiation is minimal when compared to the benefits of swifter, more informed age assessment in terms of both safeguarding and well-being.
Lord Winston (Lab)
The word “benefits” applies to the subject who is being X-rayed, does it not? Can the Minister tell us what the benefits to that subject are because it does not apply otherwise?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am coming on to some more of the noble Lord’s more detailed questions; I will endeavour to answer that question in a second.
The Ministry of Justice has undertaken a detailed consideration process to ensure that the use of X-rays is proportionate and justified. The noble Lord asked how we will ensure that the use of these scientific methods is ethical and not harmful to children. We have a statutory commitment to safeguard the welfare of children. One of the reasons for introducing scientific age assessment is to better protect against adults being treated as children in order to ensure that vulnerable children can swiftly access the support that they need. The use of ionising radiation is, for instance, highly regulated by the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, which require demonstration that the individual or societal benefits of their use outweigh any health detriments. For the methods that the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee proposes, the ionisation risks are extremely low.
The Home Office will ensure that any methods used comply with all regulatory requirements and standards. AESAC suggests that radiation exposure is minimal when compared to the benefits of a more informed age assessment. For the purposes of the methods that the committee proposes, the ionisation risks are extremely low, as I have said. They are typically less than 0.001 of a millisievert for an extremity X-ray, such as the wrist, or 0.2 of a millisievert for a dental—I will not be able to pronounce this—X-ray. Those radiation risks relate to something like less than two hours on an international flight, I believe.
I turn to the AESAC advice and the automatic assumption. On the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the application of negative inference is contrary to advice provided by the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, let me assure the House that this is not the case. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I should also say that the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance, and the Chief Medical Office, Chris Whitty, have supported this. The scientific advisory committee recommended that no automatic assumption or consequence should result from a refusal to consent. Taking a negative inference does not result in an automatic consequence; rather, the negative inference is taken into account as part of the overall decision.
I forgot to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about various protected characteristics: environmental factors, race, diet and so on. We are conscious, of course, that methods to assess age such as bone development are affected by factors such as ethnicity, body mass, sex, puberty and so on. We are seeking scientific advice to explore this issue further and any steps we can take to mitigate these impacts. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee’s advice suggests that, although skeletal maturation may differ slightly depending on ethnicity, there is also some evidence to suggest that differences in nutritional status, disease and social status may have more influence on maturation timings. In addition, dental development is less affected by such socio-economic factors; that is one of the reasons why the AESAC recommends using multiple biological areas of interest, which the Home Office is proposing to do.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee for its report because, as I have set out, the science and analysis is being used as per the committee’s recommendations. The Home Office will not use the scientific methods to determine an exact age or age range; rather, it will use the science to establish whether the claimed age of the age-disputed person is possible. It is key that methods used for age assessment have a known margin of error. Combining assessment of dental and skeletal development of multiple body areas is important as it increases the accuracy of the approach. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee advocates for a likelihood ratio method, which offers a logical and consistent summary of the evidence and permits greater confidence in the assessment of whether the claimed age is possible. The likelihood ratio is widely recognised as the appropriate way to summarise evidence, and this approach offers the best way forward for the introduction to scientific age assessments to strengthen our system.
The noble Lady Baroness, Lady Lister, asked who we have consulted. The Ministry of Justice consulted all the statutory consultees listed under the regulations, including the UK Health Security Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. The full list can be found in our decision document. In the review of the consultees, the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) have confirmed that this application falls outside their regulatory interests. However, the UK Health Security Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Food Standards Agency advise the following:
“The decision to use X-ray imaging appears well considered and appropriate to minimise any individual’s radiation exposure”.
All exposures to ionising radiation will fall under the remit of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations, which place many responsibilities on those carrying out exposures. There should be careful consideration to ensure that the contracted parties carrying out the exposures conform to these regulations and that the predicted doses for both dental and wrist X-rays are appropriate estimates.
I have probably spoken for long enough—I have definitely spoken for long enough. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, an answer to his question about children pretending to be or behaving as adults. I will come back to him on that; I do not have the detail to hand, as your Lordships can imagine. I think I have addressed the majority of the issues that were brought up. As I said earlier, I am grateful for noble Lords’ constructive and helpful suggestions and questions. I trust that noble Lords will now recognise the need for this instrument; I assure them that the Government are fully committed to working towards a better-informed and more consistent age-assessment process. This instrument is essential to that aim; I therefore commend it to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Unfortunately, I fear that many of the questions we asked across the House were not responded to. I heard very clearly that this has been designed as an innovative approach to discourage applicants but I also heard a lot of “We need to wait until we have more detail before we can tell you the answers to the questions that we want”.
I refer right back to the beginning of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave an absolute assurance at the Dispatch Box that the regulation-making power would not be exercised until the science is sufficiently accurate to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood. These SIs do not do that—worse, the Government say that they know they are not ready. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:40 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 75 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 September be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2022-23 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Brinton
At end insert “but that this House regrets that (1) the Regulations are premature as the policy is still under development, (2) it is unclear whether a person can freely consent to the specified tests, (3) there is no defined mechanism for the Secretary of State to monitor and review the policy, and (4) neither an impact assessment, nor costs associated with the Regulations, have been presented to Parliament for scrutiny; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to withdraw the Regulations until the policy has been developed in full and an impact assessment and costings have been provided to Parliament.”
Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations relate to arrangements to support the effective and efficient provision of transport services to customers, particularly in relation to rail passenger services. It will use the powers provided by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to revoke what is called EU Regulation 1370/2007 and replace it with the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. In doing so, we will take advantage of the benefits of Brexit to put in place a regime which is better tailored to the transport sector in Great Britain, supporting the provision of services to customers. This will allow us to retain a flexible regime for contracting public transport services, separate to the mainstream procurement and subsidy regimes. It will provide greater clarity and certainty to industry by retaining the interpretive effects of relevant EU case law and underlying principles where this is in Great Britain’s interest. In addition, it will streamline the existing regime by removing duplicative or unnecessary provisions.
I will start by providing some background information about these regulations. While the UK was a member of the EU, Regulation 1370/2007 created a bespoke procurement and subsidy regime for public service contracts in the transport sector. This was in recognition that such contracts are needed in the general interest of the public and cannot always be operated on an entirely commercial basis. The regulation contains some important exemptions from the complex rules surrounding subsidies and procurement. It recognises the special status of public passenger services as critical national networks. It also provides contracting authorities the freedom to let passenger services contracts more efficiently via simpler competitive processes, and when necessary, via direct award. This flexibility helps to minimise disruption to these important public services.
The intent of the regulation is to encourage competition, and this will remain the default process for the award of passenger services contracts. The regulation recognises, however, that in certain circumstances it will be necessary to award a contract without competition by instead making a direct award to maintain the continuity of essential public services; for example, the contracts which were put in place following the pandemic to secure train services. Discussions with experts from the transport sector have identified opportunities to remove some of the ambiguities and conflicting provisions in the regulation. This will provide greater certainty and clarity to industry and contracting authorities.
I now turn to the detail of the regulations. We are using this opportunity to use our post-Brexit flexibilities to revoke and replace Regulation 1370/2007. This will ensure that a robust and reliable regime for public transport service contracts is maintained, which is independent of the mainstream procurement and subsidy regimes. It will also increase efficiency by removing duplicative or unnecessary provisions and clarifying drafting wherever possible; for example, by defining terms which were previously left undefined in the EU regulation. The instrument will also bring the regime in Great Britain into compliance with the subsidy control chapter of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Crucially, this instrument will preserve the current powers to make direct awards of rail contracts, which would otherwise sunset on 25 December 2023, due to a pre-existing sunset clause within Regulation 1370/2007. This means that without this instrument, the Department for Transport, as well as other contracting authorities such as Transport for London, would lose important powers on which we currently rely to award rail franchises. Leaving the EU has given us the opportunity to retain these important powers, and it is in the best interests of the railways in Great Britain that we retain the flexibilities they provide. The private sector has an important role to play to drive innovation and growth and we remain committed to returning to competition for rail contracts as soon as possible; however this instrument recognises that in certain circumstances it will be necessary to award a contract by making a direct award.
Additionally, this instrument will provide greater clarity and assurance to industry by retaining the interpretive effects of EU case law and underlying principles. Under the retained EU law Act, EU case law will no longer be binding on UK courts after 31 December 2023. Relevant EU case law relating to procurement notices and to in-life changes to contracts, which was not codified by the regulation, has been relied on for clarity by authorities and contractors. This case law is therefore being codified by this instrument as it provides helpful clarity. Likewise, EU principles will no longer apply to underpin public service obligation procurements from the year end. The instrument replaces these with principles based on the new mainstream procurement regime for England and Wales, and with principles based on Scottish procurement law for Scotland. Beyond the changes I have outlined, this instrument largely maintains the status quo. This will provide certainty, clarity and confidence to contracting authorities, operators and passengers alike.
This instrument will put in place a regime for the award of public service obligation contracts in the rail, light rail, bus and tram sectors which is tailored to the transport systems in Great Britain, while largely enabling contracting authorities and operators to continue operating as they do now by maintaining the default position of competitively tendering for public service obligation contracts. It will enable the Government to meet their international obligations and will ensure consistency with other domestic legislation, and crucially, it will retain important flexibilities in the way we award contracts, which would not have been possible had we remained a member of the European Union. I commend these regulations to the House.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory comments. These regulations are one set of many that will undoubtedly be required to amend legislation as we establish British legislation separately from the EU legislative framework. It serves to illustrate how complex this process is going to be, and how much intensive work by officials is being required in order to produce it. It also, by the way, illustrates that the original concept of the REUL Bill was absolute pie in the sky.
This is modelled on the principles of the Procurement Act, which itself had some issues for debate as it went through this House. I noted the difference in the way in which Scotland and Wales are referred to in these regulations, because in Scotland, procurement is stated to be devolved, but not in Wales, where procurement is embraced by the same system as in England.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this instrument. The Government are right to permit the making of direct awards for PSO contracts and to ensure that they are able to meet the obligations under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. I have no intention of opposing the regulations.
I had a number of questions, but the Minister has already answered most of them—although I will not go as far as saying that he did so satisfactorily—and at this late hour, I do not intend to repeat them. Along with the answers he will give to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I think that this will be sufficient debate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their consideration of the draft regulations. I will turn to the points raised.
Regulation 1370 provides a bespoke, flexible procurement and subsidy regime for public service contracts, reflecting the fact that they are vital public services and cannot always be operated on an entirely commercial basis. Now that we have left the EU, we are able to preserve essential flexibilities and simplify the regime where possible, giving contracting authorities a strong basis for providing these key public services. Simply revoking the regime altogether would mean allowing to fall away direct award powers which provide government and franchise authorities such as Transport for London with important flexibilities in awarding rail contracts. That would create significant challenges in ensuring the effective operation of public transport services, particularly rail services.
Following privatisation 25 years ago, passenger numbers had more than doubled before the pandemic, rising more quickly than in most of Europe. The private sector has invested billions in new, modern trains and upgrading our stations—investment that would not have happened under nationalisation.
It is the Government’s intention to return to competition as quickly as possible. The intent of regulation 1370 is to encourage competition, so the default process for the award of a passenger services contract is primarily through competition. However, regulation 1370 recognises that, in certain circumstances, it will be necessary to award a contract without competition by instead making a direct award. The powers to award directly are not new but were due to expire under EU legislation. We feel that it is in the best interests of the railways and passengers in Great Britain to retain them, and leaving the EU has given us the flexibility to do so. We have committed to restart the competition for contracts as soon as possible, which will require stable market conditions and sufficient long-term certainty.
Engagement with the proposed amendments to regulation 1370 has been ongoing since early summer 2022. The key amendments to regulation 1370 were publicly consulted on as part of the plan for rail consultation. Stakeholders were generally supportive of the proposed amendments, and the Government response will be published shortly. We have held targeted engagement with key affected stakeholders on the amendments proposed in addition to those publicly consulted on. In addition to face-to-face meetings to talk stakeholders through the additional amendments and our reasoning, we have sent written detail for further consideration, including to rail partners, franchising authorities and bus and light rail stakeholders. The wide engagement enabled the Department for Transport to work closely with stakeholders affected by the instrument and address issues raised; for example, updating the definition of “rail” in line with survey feedback enabled us to achieve a broad consensus on the change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the point about engagement and consultation carried out with the devolved Administrations. As a result of close engagement, both Scottish and Welsh Ministers have provided agreement to the regulations. My officials met with each of the devolved Administrations covered by this instrument on a regular basis during the formulation of the policy and the drafting of the instrument. We worked closely with the devolved Administrations to address any concerns, including detailed work on the SI with Transport Scotland, with the result that, following ministerial approval to the instrument, Scottish parliamentary agreement was received. I commend the Motion.
Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 October be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, this Order in Council creates regulatory frameworks with the purpose of reducing road transport emissions from new cars and vans in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and supporting the vehicle manufacturing industry in the transition to new zero-emission technologies.
The Government’s cost-benefit analysis projects emissions reductions of 411 million tonnes of carbon dioxide out to 2050 as a result of the instrument. The trajectory they set for the transition to new zero-emission cars and vans out to 2030 is strongly supported by industry and is the most ambitious of its kind in any country in the world. It is in such ambition that there is opportunity. Already, over £6 billion has been invested in UK automotive manufacturing from the likes of Tata, BMW and Stellantis. It is a particular pleasure to congratulate Nissan’s Sunderland plant on its success in securing the fully electric Qashqai and Juke models. Beyond manufacturing, there has been a further £6 billion investment in charging infrastructure from the private sector. This demonstrates beyond all doubt that legislation will provide certainty, and that certainty will deliver investment, growth and jobs.
As noble Lords know, effective consultation is crucial. The Department for Transport, along with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Department for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive, has consulted extensively since the UK Government first committed to bringing forward a zero-emission vehicle mandate in 2021 in support of the commitment for all new cars and vans to be 100% zero emission by 2035. For such an impactful policy, a wide range of views had to be taken into account: global multinationals investing billions in net zero, specialist vehicle manufacturers at the cutting edge of new technology, charge point operators tracking demand to inform investment, and the general public who rely on these vehicles for their day-to-day needs.
Industry supports these measures because at every opportunity the Government have sought to engage constructively. This includes not just the UK-based manufacturers—Aston Martin, BMW, Bentley, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, McLaren, Nissan, Stellantis, Toyota and more—but international manufacturers such as Hyundai, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi and Tesla. Across the economy these measures have support. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders called this
“the single most important measure to deliver net zero”.
The chief executive of the AA has said that the measure will
“support investment in ZEVs and associated technologies and industries … and … it will help the UK’s motorists manage the transition”.
Such positivity is down to how the Government have listened to industry. The chief executive of the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association said that
“the breathing space afforded by the ZEV Mandate van trajectory changing, car club parameters being adjusted, and commitment to an accessible transition will be welcome”.
The chair of Ford UK welcomed that the ideas and discussions that took place as part of the consultation were so clearly reflected in the final design.
The headline measure of the legislation is the creation of a zero-emission vehicle mandate—a framework designed to guide the transition to zero emissions by setting targets for the sale of new zero-emission cars and vans that increase each year. The ZEV targets start in 2024, at 22% for new cars and 10% for new vans, rising to 80% and 70% in 2030. It is these percentage targets that will give charge point operators the information that they need to invest in charging infrastructure and give vehicle manufacturers certainty on which products and technologies to focus their research and development on for the UK market. While this instrument covers only the period to 2030, subsequent legislation will set out the pathway to achieving the Government’s commitment to 100% zero-emission new car and van sales in 2035, in line with other major global economies including France, Germany, Sweden and Canada.
Of course, emissions from the remaining new non-zero emission cars and vans must also be considered. That is why the order makes provision for a per-manufacturer carbon dioxide target, based on the manufacturer’s emissions in 2021, that will apply from 2024 until 2030 when the instrument ends. This approach, when taken in conjunction with a ZEV mandate, ensures that average emissions from new non-ZEVs do not increase when compared with 2021 and enables manufacturers to invest in zero-emission technology rather than being forced into delivering small, incremental emissions reductions.
To implement this policy, the Government are creating trading schemes using powers under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have taken this approach because it offers the most flexibility to automotive manufacturers—the only group regulated by this legislation—and gives them agency in their technology choices as well as absolute certainty on the milestones on what their investments must deliver for the UK market in the next decade.
The instrument provides incentives to innovation and investment where there is particular social value. Zero-emission special purpose vehicles such as ambulances, armoured vehicles and wheelchair accessible vehicles are eligible to earn bonus credits. Non-zero emission special purpose vehicles are exempt from the regulation so as not to restrict their availability while zero-emission technology develops.
Low-volume manufacturers make an outsized contribution to the automotive industry, nowhere more so than in the UK, where the likes of Bentley, Aston Martin and McLaren lead the world with their research and development. That is why the Government have implemented a small-volume derogation from the ZEV targets, meaning that a manufacturer selling fewer than 2,500 vehicles annually is not subject to the targets and in addition will receive credit for every zero-emission vehicle that they sell.
The Climate Change Act 2008 requires that each devolved legislature passes the order for the trading schemes to apply UK-wide. In the absence of a sitting Northern Ireland Assembly, the trading schemes cannot apply in Northern Ireland. At such time as a sitting Assembly is able to approve the required legislation and chooses to do so, it is the intent of the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government that the order be extended to apply in Northern Ireland. In the interim, Northern Ireland will be covered by an appropriately scaled extension of existing UK-wide new car and van emissions regulations, provided for in part 8 of the order.
The Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order is a critical step on the path to net zero and it is taken with the support and co-operation of the vehicle manufacturing industry, which is a crucial partner in delivering a long-term, sustainable transition to zero-emission vehicles. As the automotive sector undergoes the seismic shift to zero-emission technology, this order ensures that the UK will continue to punch above its weight in the global transition to net zero. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I sit on the Environment and Climate Change Select Committee, which is currently looking at electric vehicles. However, the views here are my own.
I am very pleased that the Government have brought forward a ZEV mandate, for all the reasons that the Minister has given. Quite a lot of us were fearful that it might not appear after the Government retreated into the herd when they slipped the phase-out target to 2035. The Government appeared to step back and let the manufacturers take the strain, which is a pity because Governments have a clear role in taking this issue forward.
The worry that I had was on the chilling effect of that change of date. There was a particularly poignant moment last week when the Select Committee was undertaking one of its outreach sessions with young people across the country in support of its electric vehicle enquiry. It was great to talk to these young folk. They are incredibly committed to the environment and absolutely get the net-zero thing. We were talking to them about the greater environmental awareness of young people, the pester power that they have with parents, and I asked them whether they were using their pester power to persuade their parents to adopt electric vehicles.
It was a bit shattering to hear them say, “There is no point in us trying to influence our parents on this because the Government have just said to them, by slipping the date, ‘Don’t worry, there is no rush. You don’t need to do it now—you can take all the time you like’”. I would like the Minister to understand just how chilling some of these changes of direction are. Even if they have internal logic of their own, the public see them as less commitment by the Government to these issues.
It would be great to see the Government active in some other measures to encourage uptake of electric vehicles, as well as introducing the mandate. I am a great believer that bans work—if you have an ultimate date for something not being permissible it concentrates the mind wonderfully—but it would great if the Government undertook a major campaign of reliable information to counteract the huge amount of misinformation about electric vehicles that is currently out there. The progress that has been made in both the technology and supporting technologies, such as charging, has been so great over the last few years. Any cries of doom and gloom about electric vehicles not being practicable at this stage are really misinformation. I hope the Minister could be persuaded to do more to have reliable information presented to the public, rather than just have it on the government website.
I note that the mandate is subject to review mid-term. I hope that, as well as the additional credit schemes for accessible vehicles and others that the Minister talked about, he might consider incentivising lighter vehicles, if that is not already being delivered by the scheme. Lighter vehicles create less pollution and road wear, and additional credits for manufacturers that create them would be a welcome step, if that is not already well advanced by the review period.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I too am a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee doing a study of this. Unfortunately, I was unable to benefit from the huge wisdom of young people at the school she attended. Had I been there, I would have mentioned that, since we export over 80% of the cars produced in this country, the mandate for sales in this country and the phase-out date has very little effect on British manufacturers. They have to abide by the rules in their export markets. Meanwhile, 85% of the cars we consume are produced abroad.
I want to ask the Minister whether I understand properly how this system will work. Take a year when we are half way through, when the zero-emissions mandate requires any manufacturer’s sales to be at least 50% electric vehicles and no more than 50% combustion engines. Supposing that a manufacturer finds, in the course of a year, that his sales of electric vehicles fall short and the ratio turns out to be 40:60, am I correct that the manufacturer will have to pay a £15,000 fine on all 20 extra vehicles—the difference between 40 and 60—per 100 that are combustion engine? If so, my arithmetic shows that he will effectively have a penalty of £5,000 for every combustion-engine vehicle he has sold. That is a very serious penalty. I do not think people realise quite how serious it is. I am not sure whether the Government have thought through the reaction there would be from motorists if that turns out to be the case, especially as the people who tend to buy combustion-engine vehicles rather than electric vehicles are those who cannot afford expensive vehicles—because electric vehicles tend to be more expensive. They would find themselves paying that fine on usually cheaper, smaller vehicles—to the benefit of the richer purchasers of larger, more expensive, electric vehicles. Am I correct that this is how the system works?
The Minister may say that if manufacturers have excess sales of electric vehicles from previous years they can offset those, and can go out and buy permits from other manufacturers that are, perhaps, only selling electric vehicles. Who will be the manufacturers only selling electric vehicles? They will, by and large, be Chinese manufacturers exporting their vehicles to us. A manufacturer producing only electric vehicles and importing them into this country from China will be able to sell its permits on 50% of the vehicles it sells. It can get £15,000 for each of them and enjoy a subsidy equivalent to £7,500 for every vehicle it sells. Whizzo for the Chinese manufacturers—that far exceeds the effect of the 10% tariff they will have to pay on the vehicles. Am I correct too that we have invented a system that could really subsidise the import of Chinese electric vehicles?
Then I want to ask whether this will all be worth while. If it will reduce emissions, of which I am all in favour, then great. Questions have been raised about the inbuilt emissions of electric vehicles, which are heavier and more expensive than vehicles with internal combustion engines. I do not want to deal with that point. I want to deal with the fact that electric vehicles save emissions only if they use electricity produced from renewables or non-fossil fuel sources. More than 40% of the electricity we produced in this country last year came from fossil fuels. More importantly, 100% of the marginal electricity comes from fossil fuels. If we increase the demand for electricity by switching from fossil fuel powered cars to electric powered cars, the marginal electricity supplied to them will come entirely from fossil fuels, because you can increase the supply of electricity only from fossil fuels. You cannot summon the sun or hail up extra wind but you can increase the supply of electricity from gas-fuelled power plants. We probably will not actually reduce emissions until we have made all our electricity and have spare capacity from renewables or non-fossil fuel power sources. That is not planned to be achieved until 2035, which makes the phase-out date actually have some logic—at least it ties in with something else.
My noble friend the Minister read out a figure about the expected emissions savings. Does that assume that only 40% of the electricity will come from CO2-producing fossil fuels or that 100% of it will? I suspect it is the former, whereas logically it could be the latter. I do not propose to divide the House on this issue, and I rather suspect I would not win if I did, but we should have honest answers to serious questions and not treat this whole issue as if it is a matter of virtue signalling.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will leave it to the Minister to respond to those points. I am confident that he will be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but I cannot resist pointing out that it is a case not of summoning up more sun or wind but of capturing more sun and wind through solar panels and wind energy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Sorry, can I explain that to the noble Baroness? I am very grateful to her for giving way. At present, we use 100% of the electricity generated by wind or sun and it still provides less than 60% of the electricity, so if we increased the demand we would have to persuade the sun to shine at night or the wind to blow on calm days to create extra electricity from them now.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Of course that is not the only option. The other option is to build more solar panels and more wind farms, and I am delighted to see that there is a gradual rolling out of those facilities across the country. The noble Lord is entirely right that as we build more we will use it all, as we should.
I have no doubt about the need for this legislation, because the UK transport sector is responsible for the largest share of domestic greenhouse gas production and has seen relatively little reduction in the amount it produces since 1990, in contrast with other sectors. Cars and vans alone create 18% of the UK’s total domestic greenhouse gas emissions. There are also, of course, strong health reasons to support this legislation, because air pollution in particularly densely trafficked areas is a cause of lung and heart disease, and even has links to dementia.
So the Government’s recent U-turn on their rhetoric about the date for phasing out the combustion engine was at least confusing and at worst reprehensible, because it has slowed down the transition to zero-emission vehicles and has had a negative impact on manufacturers and their investment. They have told me about their concern. The problem is that the media have obediently repeated that change in rhetoric and it has caused confusion.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the global shift towards zero-emission vehicles presents opportunities and challenges here in the UK. The automotive industry will be at the forefront of each of them, and it will need the support and engagement of the Government to address the challenges and maximise the opportunities. I am therefore pleased that Ministers are turning their attention to new incentive schemes to encourage the production and sale of new ZEVs, and we will not oppose this instrument.
The commitment to ending new sales of ZEVs by 2035 is fast approaching and schemes such as this will play a vital part. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister can provide clarity on a couple of points. First, given that the UK is no longer part of the EU new car and van emissions regulatory framework, how does this compare with similar systems internationally? Secondly, will the Minister explain how many special-purpose vehicles will be exempt?
In the consultation section of the Explanatory Memorandum there is a reference to the Climate Change Committee’s contribution. I am a great fan of that committee and, although this is not personal, the quality of the Government’s decision-making over the recent past leaves me with some discomfort in taking their statements for granted. The Climate Change Committee, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has established an excellent reputation for carefully thought-out positions, and I therefore wonder why the letter referred to in paragraph 10.2 has not been responded to. There is every possibility, given the volume of paperwork on this, that it has been and I have missed it. Has it been responded to? If not, why not? If it was, why is that not in the EM?
The letter is important. As a generality it is quite supportive, but it makes two important points. Since it is better than my speech, I will read from it. The first point is this:
“The mandate will provide clarity for manufacturers, businesses and motorists on the direction of the UK market and the rate of change required. To build on this and demonstrate consistency to the market, we recommend that your department”—
that is, the Department for Transport—
“also sets targets for the period from 2030-2035, making sure these are ambitious enough to minimise the impact of continuing petrol and diesel vehicle sales on UK emissions”.
A theme that has come from the industry over the last decade is that it wants consistency, as far into the future as possible. The committee makes the good point that the period needs to be stuck on to the end of this instrument somehow so that the industry can plan right through that period.
The committee’s second point is this:
“Another critical element of the proposed legislation are the efficiency standards for new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles which will continue to be sold until 2035. Typical new cars remain on the road for around 14 years. Therefore, ICE and hybrid vehicles that continue to be sold alongside the mandate will continue producing emissions for a considerable period. We are concerned that the regulations proposed for this portion of the market, which would require that the average emissions of each manufacturer’s new non-zero-emission car and van sales remain constant at 2021 levels each year, are insufficiently ambitious to deliver the emissions savings required to meet the UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCCC”—
I looked that up, and it is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—
“and the Sixth Carbon Budget. Our calculations”—
and I have faith in the committee’s calculations—
“show that this policy of maintaining flat emissions intensities will reduce emissions savings by around 3 MtCO2e per year by 2030 compared to my Committee’s Net Zero Pathway”.
I hope the Government will reconsider this element, because I find both arguments convincing and significant.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft Order in Council. I will now respond to the specific points raised where I can, but I assure noble Lords that, where I miss any points raised, I will endeavour to ensure they are answered in writing.
The order creates four trading schemes: the car registration trading scheme, known as CRTS, the car carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme, knowns as CCTS, and equivalents for vans known as VRTS and VCTS. The car schemes, CRTS and CCTS, may interact with one another but not with the van schemes. The van schemes, VRTS and VCTS, may interact with one another but not with the car schemes. The CRTS and VRTS schemes apply the ZEV targets and the CCTS and VCTS schemes apply the carbon dioxide targets. This structure enables manufacturers to pursue multiple routes to compliance with their ZEV and carbon dioxide emissions targets.
Compliance in the trading schemes is tracked using units called allowances and credits. Each of the four trading schemes has its own allowance, and the two trading schemes that enforce the ZEV targets have their own credit. One credit is worth one allowance in the respective trading scheme.
Each year, the administrator of the trading schemes will allocate manufacturers enough allowances in each trading scheme, based on their in-year sales so that, if they meet their targets, they will require no allowances in addition and will be able to sell the excess to other manufacturers, bank it for future use or convert it for use in another scheme. Manufacturers who sell zero-emission special-purpose and wheelchair-accessible vehicles will receive bonus credits in the relevant scheme, as will manufacturers who sell zero-emission vehicles to car clubs.
The instrument provides a range of tools that facilitate different zero-emission vehicle transition strategies. Manufacturers who overcomply with their ZEV targets may bank that overcompliance for use in later years, convert it into compliance for the carbon dioxide targets at an exchange rate or sell it to other manufacturers. Manufacturers whose sales alone are not enough to meet the ZEV targets may borrow from their own future compliance at an interest rate of 3.5%, convert compliance from the carbon dioxide targets at an exchange rate or buy from other manufacturers.
Borrowing and conversion from carbon dioxide targets to ZEV targets are only allowed for the first three years of the schemes, expiring in 2026, and are capped proportionally to a manufacturer’s total car registrations or van registrations. This approach allows manufacturers to choose a path that makes sense for their business without increasing overall carbon dioxide emissions.
Vehicle manufacturers may trade freely among themselves. The only requirements are a short notification to the administrator of the trading schemes and enough units of compliance to fulfil the transaction. The price of trading units of compliance is determined by the market; however, there is effectively a cap on the maximum price per unit due to the final compliance payments to government required if a manufacturer does not meet their target. These are set at £15,000 per car in all years, £9,000 per van in 2024 and £18,000 per van from 2025, and, for the carbon dioxide emissions schemes, £86 per gram of carbon dioxide over the target multiplied by the number of non-zero emission vehicles sold.
The Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the administration of the schemes for the UK. A specialist team in the Department for Transport is working with devolved Administrations and vehicle manufacturers to prepare for scheme commencement, with the vast majority of administrative obligations on manufacturers not falling before summer 2025. Draft guidance has been circulated to vehicle manufacturers as part of a collaborative process to ensure that they have the documentation they need to support this change. Officials are in regular contact with vehicle manufacturers and will continue to engage closely throughout implementation and operation.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lilley on the environmental impact of zero-emission vehicle manufacturers, a battery electric vehicle, the most common type of zero-emission vehicle, produces only a third of the lifecycle emissions of an equivalent petrol car. They can make the best use of the UK’s renewable energy, which already represents around 40% of UK electricity generation and is set to rise to 100% by 2035.
If, after having the opportunity to make use of banking, borrowing, conversions, derogations, pooling and trading, a manufacturer has not met its target it will be required to make a payment. This is set at £15,000 per car for all years, as I said, and £9,000 per van in 2024, rising to £18,000 from 2025 onwards. The payment for missing the carbon dioxide target will be £86 multiplied by the number of non-zero-emission vehicles registered. These amounts are comparable to comparator schemes in the EU, California and Canada. The payment levels reflect the difference in emissions between a new zero-emission and new non-zero-emission vehicle and will serve as an effective incentive to meet targets.
Further to my answer to my noble friend Lord Lilley on the renewable energy mix and the grid, since 2010 renewables have gone from less than 7% of our electricity supply to 48% in the first quarter of this year. The UK will phase out coal from power generation in 2024 and is accelerating the growth of renewables, such as wind and solar, to meet our net-zero target and decarbonise our electricity system by 2035. We have seen £198 billion of investment into low-carbon energy since 2010 and our global leadership is set to attract another £100 billion by 2030. The very technical points that my noble friend raised perhaps deserve a more technical response than I can provide at the Dispatch Box this evening. On that basis, I will make sure that he gets a fulsome response in writing to his points.
The order contains robust provisions that will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to take action where necessary. There are four enforcement powers: to require information, to question an officer of a company and, as a last resort, to obtain a warrant and enter premises, where the final power—to seize documents—may be used. These powers would be used as a last resort only where all other forms of formal and informal engagement with the manufacturer concerned had been unsuccessful in resolving concerns.
As a result of the trajectory and flexibilities on offer, manufacturers will be able to comply with the requirements of the legislation in 2024 without selling any more ZEVs than they had planned to. Manufacturer commitments to transition to ZEVs by 2030 already amount to more than 67% of the UK car market, with manufacturers such as Ford, Stellantis and Nissan all committed to selling 100% zero-emission new cars and vans by 2030, and all major manufacturers committed to being fully ZEV by 2035. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, when the 2030 end-of-sale date was announced in December 2020, there appeared to be a clear difference in the carbon dioxide emissions performance between some hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies and normal petrol and diesel cars.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on wheelchair-accessible vehicles, the Government recognise how important these vehicles are to their users as a vital lifeline that provides freedom and dignity. That is why the order exempts new non-zero-emission wheelchair-accessible vehicles from the requirements. This means that users who continue to need petrol, diesel or hybrid models can continue to access them. The order also applies a bonus credit for any zero-emission wheelchair-accessible vehicles that are registered, recognising the additional manufacturing and value that such a vehicle represents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also asked about Northern Ireland regulations. The regulations that apply to Northern Ireland are a scaled-down version of the existing regulations that currently apply UK-wide and will end in Great Britain with the commencement of this order. In broad terms, manufacturers are set individual targets for their average emissions across all the cars or vans that they sell.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who talked about charge-point disparity. On deploying those charge points and geographical disparity, the Government and industry have already supported the installation of over 49,200 publicly available charging devices. The number of local public charge points needed will vary by area and over time, depending on the types of charge point installed, travel patterns and consumer preferences. Setting binding targets at this stage would risk stifling innovative approaches and could lead to the installation of charge points in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Government’s local electric vehicle fund provides over £381 million of funding to all local authorities in England to ensure good coverage of charge points. The funding was allocated to local authorities using a number of set variables, including charge points by population and the level of rurality. The inclusion of the rurality variable means that local authorities in rural areas were allocated additional funding, compared to urban areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the impact on sales. We consulted on whether we should incentivise certain specifications of vehicles, and responses were overwhelmingly in favour of a simple one vehicle, one credit allowance scheme. Otherwise, we shall keep this under review. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the Climate Change Committee, the letter was responded to by Minister Norman during his time at the Department for Transport. We can commit to sending the letter to the noble Lord.
As I have outlined, this legislation sets out a clear pathway for the decarbonisation of new cars and vans. It will allow industry and households to plan confidently for the future. The order will establish the strongest targets of their kind in any country globally and will be a crucial catalyst for new investment, new jobs and new technology, which will drive the transition of our economy to net zero.
I hope I have answered some of the questions. I will certainly go through Hansard and see what is outstanding and write to noble Lords. I commend the order to the House.
Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 October be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 17 October 2023. They implement the world-leading recognition of professional qualifications provisions within the UK’s free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—the EEA/EFTA states. This was one of the first free trade agreements to be agreed by the UK following our departure from the EU and continues our strong trading relationship with these valued partners. They provide certainty for professionals with qualifications from these countries who want to be recognised by UK regulators and work in the UK.
Given that the provisions in the agreement are reciprocal, UK professionals also benefit from reduced barriers when having their qualifications recognised in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. I will begin with some background to explain what the provisions achieve. I will then move on to discuss the regulations in detail.
The UK signed a world-leading free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in July 2021. Chapter 12 of the agreement outlines an ambitious system for the recognition of professional qualifications between the parties. Under the agreement, UK regulators are required to recognise comparable professional qualifications obtained in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Regulators in those countries are required to recognise comparable professional qualifications obtained in the UK.
Reciprocal provisions on recognition of professional qualifications are an important part of the UK’s services trade agenda, helping UK professionals enter new markets and deliver our world-leading services overseas. They also help at home, supporting overseas professionals to enter the UK labour market. Enabling this free flow of skills internationally leads to enhanced UK prosperity. Recognition of professional qualifications is a common feature in the UK’s modern trade deals, but the provisions we agreed with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are relatively distinct by introducing binding obligations on regulators.
This agreement underpins our valued co-operation with long-standing trading partners on the recognition of professional qualifications. The Government understand the importance of continuity for British businesses. As such, this agreement seeks to maintain similar recognition of professional qualifications outcomes to the UK’s previous arrangements with these countries.
The UK is required to meet the terms of the agreement by 1 December 2023, and the Government are using powers contained in Section 3 of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 to do so. Enshrining this system in legislation is necessary to ensure that the UK fulfils its obligations under international law. Without these regulations, some regulators will not have the necessary legal powers to meet the requirements of the agreement. These regulations will come into force at the same time that the UK’s EU-derived system for recognition of professional qualifications ends. This will ensure clarity and a smooth transition for regulators and professionals.
If it is helpful, I will now provide some detail on these regulations. They place a duty on all regulators of professions across the UK to recognise comparable professional qualifications obtained in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The regulations also give regulators the powers to recognise these qualifications where necessary. Regulators will be required to treat qualifications in accordance with the system set out in the agreement and in the regulations.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his introduction, which has, I think, answered my questions. As when we discussed the Bill in this House, my concern is very much with the status of the devolved Administrations, the issues and implications for the devolved Governments and the different systems that exist within the nations of the UK for both professional qualifications and the education system that feeds into them.
I have one small remaining question. The Minister referred to English language proficiency. If there were to be a requirement within a particular profession for the Welsh language in Wales, would that also be satisfactorily recognised in these regulations?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, for outlining and explaining the regulations, which are largely uncontentious. I will pick up a few of the issues that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the SLSC—raised. I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of them but they are worth touching on.
Before that, on the regulations themselves, do the Government expect the new RPQ system to have any bearing on immigration levels? If it is expected to be net neutral overall, are there any particular sectors that may be affected either way, positively or negatively? Are there any staffing gaps? The Minister talked about exporting British talent around the globe but are there any particular gaps within the UK that we are hoping to use these measures to help fill, in terms of inward migration?
The Department for Business and Trade says that this may require regulators to change some of their current processes. The Government acknowledged this impact but a full impact assessment has not been carried out or produced. So have the Government made any assessment of the extent of the requirements? In his introduction, the Minister said that they expect it to be minimal, but can he elaborate on that a little? Can he highlight any particular areas where that impact would be most severe?
Also, with the new timeframe, from my reading of the Explanatory Memorandum and the SLSC papers on this, I think there may be some issues for a few of the regulators with the reduced timescale for turning round their regulations.
I turn to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report and some of the areas it touches on, which the Minister has raised. The Department for Business and Trade said that the consultation with regulators received “generally supportive” feedback. This is one of the areas on which the SLSC takes the department and the regulations to task, because there was no publication of the consultation. In fact, the committee goes on to say:
“Where a consultation is conducted, a full analysis of the consultation responses should always be published at the time an instrument is laid before Parliament. … It is therefore important that an analysis of the feedback is made available, in the interest of transparency and so that all relevant material is available to support the scrutiny process”.
Does the Minister agree, and will he aim to make sure that this is dealt with in future consultations? I think we have the RPQ with Switzerland coming in the next few months. Can the Minister ensure that a full consultation will be carried out and published?
The committee report mentions:
“The Department for Business and Trade is deliberating how to broaden and deepen its approach to engagement on trade policy, to ensure it is fit for purpose”.
Has there been any progress on looking to broaden and deepen its approach to trade policy to make sure it is fit for purpose?
My final point is on paragraph 13 on page 4:
“We welcome the Department’s commitment to consider how to improve its consultation and engagement processes ahead of any future negotiations on RPQ and trade agreements”.
I agree with that statement, but I also think it is very weak, and I wondered if I could push the Minister to move a little further from the word “consider” to “deliver”. Will his department look to deliver how to improve consultation and engagement process rather than just consider?
Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum at the back of the draft statutory instrument, I shall raise only one point about paragraph 3, where, under
“Matters of special interest to Parliament”
and
“Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments”
the department has written, “None”. That is fair enough, but there is an SLSC report which raises a number of concerns, and it would have been nice to see in the Explanatory Memorandum some note on the issues that have been raised by the SLSC. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their contributions to this SI debate. We can deal with the points about the devolved Governments right now. Of course, the UK has a strong tradition of different professions and different countries doing different things. It is only since 1707 that we have all been working with one Parliament, and we had lawyers long before then. But on balance, we want to try to work as one country, and the whole point of doing these FTAs is that we form up to the rest of the world as one United Kingdom.
But there is a lot of flexibility within the devolved Governments. We have consulted with the Governments, and the devolved Administrations have confirmed that they can work with this SI—and they will then implement it in their own territories. It is perfectly within the rights of the Welsh to make a Welsh language requirement, in the same way as it might be in the Western Isles in Scotland to do it in Gaelic. That would be for those Governments to decide.
On the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, on immigration, these three countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, are pretty—well, we should not use the phrase “small countries”, but they are contained in terms of their interaction with the UK. Where is Liechtenstein? We would not expect there to be any eventual impact on immigration with reference to those three countries.
On the FTAs, as I said once before, we want to form up to the rest of the world as one UK. In fact, in my own portfolio, dealing with the utilisation of a lot of the FTAs, such as the one we have just done with Australia, we are finding that the key thing in their implementation is to make sure that we benefit the whole United Kingdom.
There has been extensive discussion with the regulators. As required by Section 15 of the PQ Act, we consulted affected regulators. When using the regulations using Section 3, we formally consulted the regulators, in January 2023. We are not required to publish a report online on that consultation. I hear what the noble Lord says about the SLSC, but there is very much a commitment from this Government to broaden and deepen trade policy. Probably the main benefit that we get from Brexit is going to be international trade, so we have an obligation to broaden and deepen trade policy.
With that, we can say that we now have these arrangements in place to proceed. As a reminder, this instrument places a legal duty on the UK regulators to recognise comparable qualifications in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and it gives regulators the power to recognise those qualifications, when they do not currently have the power in the relevant sector legislation.
This instrument has UK-wide application, and it will ensure that the UK is fully compliant with our obligations in the agreement. It will provide consistency across the statute book and provide clarity for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as for our own professionals.