House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The UK Government fully recognise the challenges posed by cost of living pressures as a result of the covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which is why we have provided £96 billion since 2022 to support households and individuals across the United Kingdom —an average of about £3,400 per household.
Mr Dhesi
Diolch, Mr Speaker. Just as the cost of living crisis here demands urgent action for my constituents in Slough, the cost of living crisis in Wales demands it for the good people of Wales, especially as households face being £870 worse off under this Government’s tax plan. Shockingly, a Which? survey has found that one in five working-age parents in Wales is skipping meals owing to high food prices. What recent conversations has the Secretary of State had with supermarkets about keeping the cost of food down?
David T. C. Davies
I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise and welcome the fact that, as a result of the policies being pursued by this Government, inflation has fallen from more than 11% to about 4%. I hope he will also agree that workers throughout Wales will be very pleased with the cut in national insurance contributions, which means that on average they will be £642 better off. If he is really concerned about the plight of working parents in Wales, I hope he will ask his colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government to roll out the childcare initiatives that are being rolled out in England, but not by them in Wales.
Ben Lake
A number of my constituents have been adversely affected by their transfer from working tax credit to universal credit, because they work in sectors such as agriculture and tourism and their incomes are therefore seasonal. The switch from an annual to a monthly assessment of their entitlement means that many are losing out, but the Government have said that there will be no impact assessment to determine the financial effect of the move. Will the Secretary of State intervene in support of such an assessment, so that workers with seasonal incomes can be treated fairly?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman is a champion of constituents in rural areas such as his, and I am happy to look at any information that he wants to give, but I hope that he will recognise that the increase in the living wage will have helped his constituents, even those who work seasonally. That is alongside the extra payments that the Government have made to households in which people are living on benefits or have disabilities.
Richard Thomson
Is the Secretary of State aware of a report published this morning by the Trussell Trust? It states that 55% of the people receiving universal credit in Wales ran out of food last month and could not afford more, nearly 40,000 have needed to use a food bank in the last month, and four in 10 have fallen into debt because they could not keep up with their bills. Whatever the UK Government are doing about this, it is clearly nowhere near enough. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?
David T. C. Davies
The focus of this UK Government is on ensuring that people can work and do not have to live on benefits, but we recognise that there are those in need. That is why pensions, benefits and the living wage have all risen in line with inflation, and why we have ensured that additional payments are made to pensioners, those living on benefits and households where there has been disability. The fact is that people on low wages will not be helped by the plans of the hon. Gentleman’s Government in Scotland—and, indeed, the Labour Opposition—to shut down the oil and gas industry, which would throw 100,000 people out of work.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Government’s sustainable farming scheme, if implemented, would have the most serious possible impact not only on Welsh farming businesses, but on the cost of living in the rural areas that depend on them? Does he further agree that for those communities, the scheme is the very opposite of sustainable?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Welsh Labour Government’s sustainable farming scheme involves taking 20% of prime Welsh agricultural land out of commission in order to pursue a whole load of nebulous schemes. It will increase food miles, and will reduce our ability to feed ourselves.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
One of the best ways we can support people with the cost of living across Wales is by supporting businesses. Does the Minister agree that the Welsh Labour Government, propped up by Plaid Cymru, should do more to support hard-working farmers on Anglesey, such as Richard Jones and his family dairy, Maelog Jerseys, in Llanfaelog?
David T. C. Davies
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Welsh Government should abandon their so-called sustainable farming scheme, which will remove 20% of prime Welsh agricultural land and prevent farmers from growing food or grazing crops on it. They need to do something about tuberculosis, which is running rampant in Wales, unlike in England, and they need to look at the nitrate vulnerable zones across the whole of Wales, which will also impact farmers, such as her constituents.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The impact of the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis on people in north Wales has been exacerbated by their dither and delay on new nuclear at Wylfa. The previous project, which Ministers abandoned in 2019, could have been 50% completed by now, and would have created up to 8,500 jobs. Some 900 permanent jobs would also be well on the way, adding a total of almost £400 million a year to the local economy in wages. What does the Secretary of State say to people across north Wales who are still looking for good jobs because of his Government’s failures?
David T. C. Davies
The last Labour Government certainly did not build any nuclear power stations. The UK Conservative Government are getting on with Hinkley, and we are sorting out small modular reactors. There is a process going on, in which six companies with an SMR model will be reduced to two, and one will be selected by the end of the year. We have provided £160 million to buy the Wylfa site. That will ensure that there is a nuclear industry in Wales—a result of the policies of this Conservative Government.
Jo Stevens
It is a stark admission of the Government’s failure that the Secretary of State boasts, after 14 years in government and doing absolutely nothing for five years, of acquiring a site at Wylfa. His Government’s inaction has cost people money, and still does. In nine years, all but one of our current reactors will be offline, which will weaken our energy mix, risk higher prices, and again leave us vulnerable to energy tyrants such as Putin. Will the Secretary of State make an explicit commitment today to backing new nuclear in places such as Wylfa, as Labour has done, in order to unlock jobs, investment and cheaper bills—issues that his party has ignored for so long? Or is this another never-ending Tory fiasco, like High Speed 2?
David T. C. Davies
The last Labour Government were not in the least bit supportive of nuclear. What this Conservative Government have done for energy is increase to 50% the amount of electricity that comes from renewables. We are the first advanced economy to halve our carbon dioxide emissions, and we are pushing forward with floating offshore wind and SMRs. All we get for business from the Welsh Labour Government is a block on new roads being built, 20 mph speed limits, and legislation to charge people for driving to work.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
David T. C. Davies
The UK Government are backing our small businesses by raising the VAT threshold, delivering tax reliefs for the creative industries and investing in high-growth industries, such as advanced manufacturing. That is in stark contrast to the Welsh Labour Government’s anti-business agenda; Wales has some of the highest business rates in the whole United Kingdom. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) thinks that having the highest business rates in the United Kingdom is funny.
Stephen Crabb
Sadly, pubs and restaurants are closing at a faster rate in Wales than in any other part of the UK. The measures in the Budget that the Secretary of State mentioned will bring some relief, but does he agree that what is pushing many of these businesses to the wall right now is Welsh Labour’s slashing of business rates support?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The UK Government have made sure that pubs and other small hospitality businesses receive a 75% discount on their business rates. In Wales, that policy has been absolutely slashed, meaning that pubs and small businesses pay thousands of pounds more under the Welsh Labour Government. That is an absolute disgrace.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I return the Secretary of State to the issue of the Rhondda tunnel? The Chancellor of the Exchequer doled out bits and pieces of money to the constituencies of various Members of Parliament on the Tory at-risk register, but he did not allocate any money to the Rhondda tunnel, despite the Secretary of State having told me personally in the Chamber that we should apply for money from the levelling-up fund. That is all gone, hasn’t it? So where should we now apply for money for the Rhondda tunnel?
David T. C. Davies
There have been three rounds of levelling-up funding. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are growth deals across the length and breadth of Wales, covering every single constituency; that there are special projects being backed in areas such as Newport; and that there is an investment zone and a freeport in Port Talbot. Constituencies the length and breadth of Wales have benefited from the many projects that this Government have put forward. I appreciate his concern for that project in his constituency, and I suggest that he might look at shared prosperity fund money in future.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is well aware that the Chancellor has extended business rate relief at the rate of 75% here in England, but of course the Welsh Government are refusing to pass that money on to small businesses in Barry and Cowbridge in my constituency. Does he not think it completely unfair that a business in Bristol or Cornwall will pay a lot less in business rates than a business in Barry or Cowbridge?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is extraordinary that the Welsh Labour Government, who are receiving this funding in order to support small businesses in Wales, are failing to pass it on. As a result, the average pub in Wales will pay more than £2,000 more in business rates than a pub in England. The Welsh Labour Government must do more to support small businesses in Wales.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that much of our monetary policy, which has an effect on interest rates for Welsh businesses and Welsh households, is decided in Threadneedle Street. Has he met the Governor of the Bank of England recently? If not, will he invite him to Wales to see the impact of his policies on the Welsh economy? Will he hold a meeting with other Welsh MPs, and may I humbly suggest that it be in Blackwood, Newbridge or Risca in my constituency?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman will surely be aware that the Bank of England sets interest rates independently, as a result of a policy brought in by the former Labour Government. It has been widely accepted that it is right that the Bank should set interest rates with a view to not what politicians ask it to do, but what the economy demands. As a result of the policies being pursued by this UK Government in conjunction with the Bank of England, inflation has dropped drastically from over 11% to 4%, and I would like to think that interest rates will soon follow.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This
“Budget will do nothing to deliver a better future for retailers and their customers.”
Those are the words of the British Retail Consortium, whose members face 45,000 incidents of theft and 1,300 incidents of violence and abuse every day. To help keep our Welsh high streets safe, we Labour Members want to fund an extra 13,000 police officers and police community support officers, and extra measures to deal with offenders. Why are the Government failing to tackle the epidemic of shoplifting and its victims, and to take it seriously?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady is right to raise this important issue for retailers, but I remind her that the UK Government have provided for an extra 20,000 police officers across the whole United Kingdom. We have repeatedly brought forward legislation to increase prison sentences and punishments for offenders, but that legislation has often been voted against by members of her political party.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
This Government pledged £1 billion to electrify the north Wales main line. We all know that that £1 billion is an uncosted number pulled out of the air. We also now know that phase 1 goes no further than Llandudno. How can the Secretary of State explain that to the people living in Ynys Môn and Gwynedd? Talk of rail electrification just means more of the same for us: slow trains, cancelled services and empty election promises.
David T. C. Davies
The UK Government have already shown a commitment to transport in Wales, spending £390 million on improved rail infrastructure over the last control period. In addition to that, there has been the south Wales metro, which is part of a UK Government-Welsh Government joint-funded growth deal. The Prime Minister was very clear about our commitment to the electrification of the north Wales rail line, and that commitment stands.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Tory leader in the Senedd opposes moves to tackle the effects of excessive numbers of holiday homes in our communities. He goes on about
“anti-tourism, and anti-English policies being imposed on the Welsh tourism industry”.
Now that the Tory Westminster Government are abolishing tax breaks for holiday lets, would the Secretary of State claim that his Chancellor is anti-tourism?
David T. C. Davies
I would not. My friend in the Senedd has spoken out repeatedly about the Welsh Labour Government’s plans for an overnight tourism tax, which will have a detrimental impact on tourism businesses across Wales. The hon. Lady’s party is in partnership with the Welsh Labour Government, and if she really wants to support the Welsh tourism industry, I suggest she tells it that her Members will vote against Welsh Labour’s Budget, to prevent that tax from coming in.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Government are committed to transforming our electricity network to reach our energy security and net zero ambitions. We recently announced an ambitious electricity network package that will reduce consumer bills, bring forward £90 billion of investment over the next 10 years and allow us to harness Wales’s renewable resources, such as floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea.
Jonathan Edwards
Pylon developments for electricity transmission and distribution purposes are very controversial in the communities that are expected to host them. I have four such potential developments in my constituency, and the whole of Carmarthenshire is in uproar. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to commission a study on technologies such as cable ploughing, which allow undergrounding and have a comparable cost to pylons?
David T. C. Davies
I understand the concerns that have been raised in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He has discussed this with me previously, and is championing his constituents’ concerns. The information that I have been given is that laying cables underground would cost five to seven times more, but I hear what he is saying. If he has a presentation or something that he can forward to me, I would be delighted to make sure that officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero see it.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On the subject of transmission and distribution policy, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Senedd has decided to ban GB News? What is his policy on that?
David T. C. Davies
There may be a small electricity saving, but it is very disappointing that the Welsh Labour Government are preventing a perfectly legitimate viewpoint from being heard by Members of the Senedd, who would do well to listen to people who do not always agree with everything they say.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
As my hon. Friend knows, healthcare is devolved to the Welsh Government, who have received record funding to deliver on their devolved responsibilities. They receive 20% more funding per person than is received for comparable services in England. Despite that extra money, more than 24,000 patients in Wales have been waiting more than two years for treatment. The number of people waiting more than two years for treatment in England, which has roughly 20 times the population, is around 200.
Jerome Mayhew
Last month, fewer than half of red calls were answered by the ambulance service in Labour’s Wales within the necessary eight minutes. That is the Leader of the Opposition’s blueprint for government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of campaigning for more politicians in Wales, Labour should focus on delivering the health services that the people of Wales thoroughly deserve?
David T. C. Davies
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I had to make a 999 call for an ambulance for my father-in-law at 11 o’clock one morning, and it arrived at 4 o’clock the following morning. My father-in-law then had to wait for another six hours in the back of an ambulance outside an accident and emergency unit. The Welsh Labour Government had built industrial fans in the ambulance bays to waft away the diesel fumes. That is totally unacceptable. They are cutting the NHS budget in Wales by around £65 million, yet they can find £120 million extra for more politicians in Cardiff Bay.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), has announced an extra £200 million of spending for dentistry. I have repeatedly asked her whether that is in the English budget or additional, in which case it would produce a Barnett consequential, but all she could say, repeatedly, is that it was additional. Can the Secretary of State for Wales tell me whether the extra £200 million for dentistry in England will produce about £10 million extra for Wales, or will it produce nothing at all? Perhaps he does not know, either.
David T. C. Davies
As a result of the Budget, around £170 million extra will go to Wales. The hon. Gentleman knows that Wales receives around 20% extra to deliver healthcare, and it is therefore absolutely appalling that the Welsh Labour Government are unable to deliver the same services that are supplied in England. It is interesting; Labour claims to be the party of the national health service, but where are Labour Members? They are not standing to ask a supplementary to this question, because they are ashamed of the healthcare that they have delivered in Wales. Let this not become a blueprint for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
A 90-year-old constituent of mine spent 31 hours in the back of an ambulance outside the Wrexham Maelor Hospital waiting to be seen. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, which serves north Wales, is responsible for 80% of the preventable deaths in Wales. Does the Minister agree that the Welsh Labour Government, who run the NHS there, are putting lives at risk?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns about the level of healthcare being provided to her constituents. Shockingly, when the independent commissioners at the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board raised serious concerns about more than £100 million being misspent, the Welsh Labour Health Minister called them in and sacked them. No wonder we are not getting the right level of healthcare in Wales.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
The Secretary of State and other Tory MPs bring up a litany of health issues in Wales, but Barnett consequentials are a result of health spending and need in England. Have the UK Government ever made any spending decisions on need in Wales, such as in health, and then funded England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as a consequence of Welsh need? He might find that a strange question, because UK decisions are always made on the basis of England’s need and other people get money as a consequence, which is why Wales is never going to catch Ireland for as long as Wales is in the UK and not independent. Is that not so?
David T. C. Davies
The Holtham review looked at what Welsh needs were and calculated that Wales needed an extra 15%. The UK Conservative Government then provided Wales with an extra 20%. The question still stands: why have thousands of people in Wales been waiting for more than two years for treatment, given that the Welsh Labour Government have been given more money than they need to properly fund the health service in Wales?
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The not very independent commission was set up by Welsh Labour Ministers and reports to them, but it was paid for by Welsh taxpayers. Its report was entirely in line with all the predictions I made: it contained more constitutional navel gazing and more calls for more powers, and nothing at all to address the problems that have been inflicted on Wales by the Welsh Labour Government.
Marco Longhi
It is deeply concerning that a so-called “independent” commission described Welsh independence as “viable”, despite the fact that the vast majority of people in Wales support remaining part of the Union. Of course, there is a difference between something that might be viable and something that is best. Does my right hon. Friend agree that independence for Wales would be hugely damaging to the Welsh economy and public services, and that any further exploration of this idea must be immediately ruled out by the Labour Welsh Government?
David T. C. Davies
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; it is hugely concerning that the Welsh Labour Government were even willing to consider independence for Wales with this commission. They should be sorting out the longest NHS waiting lists in the UK and doing something about the fact that we have the lowest educational standards and some of the highest business rates in the UK. As a result of the last bit of legislation, we also have some of the slowest speed limits in the UK. It is time the Welsh Labour Government addressed the real priorities of the people in Wales with the powers they already have.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the reality not that the Conservative party never wanted devolution in Wales or Scotland in the first place, which is why it does not want to see powers extended to either the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament?
David T. C. Davies
I campaigned against the Senedd in the first place, but I was perfectly happy to accept the results of the referendum. I suggest that Scottish National party Members ought similarly to respect the results of independence referendums, be they about independence from the UK or independence from the European Union.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The recent protests by farmers across the whole of Wales, including outside the Senedd, show the huge anger there is about the proposals for the Welsh Labour Government’s so-called “sustainable farming scheme”.
Dr Evans
One of the best ways we can support Welsh farmers is by choosing to buy British products. That is good for the environment, as it reduces food miles, and for our food security, as we support our farmers. Will the Secretary of State congratulate Morrisons, Aldi, Sainsbury’s and now Ocado, which have all signed up to my campaign to have a “buy British” button online so that consumers can easily find British produce?
David T. C. Davies
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about buying British, although I might go one step further and suggest we buy Welsh food, wherever possible. That will be a lot more difficult if Labour implement its plans to bury 10% of Welsh agricultural land under trees and to bury another 10% under ponds. That will increase food miles, decrease food security and destroy prime agricultural land in Wales. The Welsh Labour Government need to think again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The best way to support farmers in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England is to buy British. Does the Minister agree that we should all work together, across all this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to promote farming everywhere?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Let us encourage everyone to buy British and ensure we use as much of our land as possible for growing food, not covering it in trees. It is particularly hypocritical for the Welsh Government to tell farmers they have to plant trees on their land when the Welsh Labour Government are responsible for thousands of acres of forest. They are chopping down 850,000 tonnes of trees every year and even putting some of them into the boiler that heats up the Senedd—not that many trees are probably required to add to the hot air in there.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
The Post Office IT scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages in our nation’s history. I am determined that the victims get the justice and redress they deserve. Today, we are introducing legislation to quash convictions resulting from this scandal. The Department for Business and Trade will be responsible for the new redress scheme, and we are widening access to the optional £75,000 payment. Hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters have fought long and hard for justice. With this Bill, we will deliver it.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Afzal Khan
Despite serious opposition from the Archbishop of Canterbury, three former Home Secretaries and three Government advisers on antisemitism, social cohesion and political violence, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is due to widen the definition of extremism tomorrow. While Members on the Government Benches peddle far-right conspiracy theories about Islamists and Muslims taking over Britain, should the Prime Minister’s priority not be to get his own house in order and to stamp out extremism, racism and Islamophobia in the Conservative party? Will the Prime Minister finally take Islamophobia seriously and agree to the definition?
The Prime Minister
Discrimination has no place in our society. It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on one hand and unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence on the other. I urge the hon. Gentleman to wait for the details of the strategy. It is a sensitive matter, but it is one we must tackle because there has been rise in extremists who are trying to hijack our democracy. That must be confronted. He talks about peddling conspiracy theories; I would just point him in the direction of the previous Labour candidate in Rochdale.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right that our incredible NHS staff deserve our utmost thanks for their service. I am pleased that many NHS organisations, as he knows, have their own schemes in place to do that. We also recognise outstanding NHS staff through our honours system, and MPs are able to acknowledge their work through the NHS parliamentary awards. Nominations remain open and I encourage colleagues to avail themselves of that scheme. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend gets to meet the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to discuss his specific proposals further.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I welcome the legislation on the Post Office scandal?
Mr Speaker, this week we lost the formidable Tommy McAvoy, who served his hometown of Rutherglen and the Labour Government with loyalty and good humour. We send our deepest sympathies to his wife, Eleanor, and their family.
We also learnt that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) will be taking her well-deserved retirement. She has served this House and her constituents with a real sense of duty, and her unwavering commitment to ending modern slavery is commended by all of us. We thank her for her service.
Is the Prime Minister proud to be bankrolled by someone using racist and misogynous language when he said that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)
“makes you want to hate all black women”?
The Prime Minister
The alleged comments were wrong, they were racist, and he has now—[Interruption.] As I said, the comments were wrong and they were racist. He has rightly apologised for them and that remorse should be accepted. There is no place for racism in Britain, and the Government that I lead is living proof of that.
Keir Starmer
Mr Speaker, the man bankrolling the Prime Minister also said that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington should be shot. How low would he have to sink, what racist, woman-hating threat of violence would he have to make, before the Prime Minister plucked up the courage to hand back the £10 million that he has taken from him?
The Prime Minister
As I said, the gentleman apologised genuinely for his comments, and that remorse should be accepted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about language. He might want to reflect on the double standards of his deputy Leader calling her opponent “scum”, the shadow Foreign Secretary comparing Conservatives to Nazis, and the man whom he wanted to make Chancellor talking about “lynching” a female Minister. His silence on that speaks volumes.
Keir Starmer
The difference is that the Prime Minister is scared of his party; I have changed my party—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister invited himself into everyone’s living room at 6 o’clock on a Friday evening. No one asked him to give that speech; he chose to do it. He chose to anoint himself as the great healer and pose as some kind of unifier, but when the man bankrolling his election says that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington should be shot, he suddenly finds himself tongue-tied, shrinking in sophistry, hoping he can deflect for long enough that we will all go away. What does the Prime Minister think it was about the hundreds of millions of pounds of NHS contracts given to Frank Hester by his Government that first attracted him to giving £10 million to the Tory party in the first place?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I am absolutely not going to take any lectures from somebody who chose to represent the antisemitic terrorist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, who chose to serve a Leader of the Opposition who let antisemitism run rife in this Labour party. Those are his actions, those are his values, and that is how he should be judged.
Keir Starmer
The problem is that the Prime Minister is describing a Labour party that no longer exists; I am describing a man who is bankrolling the Conservatives’ upcoming general election. [Interruption.] They can shout all they like. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister marched them out like fools to defend Islamophobia, and now the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is warming up the Opposition Benches for them. Yesterday, the Prime Minister sent them out to play down racism and misogyny until he was forced to change course. He will not hand the money back. He will not comment on how convenient it is that a man handed huge NHS contracts by his Government is now his party’s biggest donor. You have to wonder what the point is of a Prime Minister who cannot lead and a party that cannot govern.
Mr Speaker, national insurance contributions fund state pensions and the NHS, so is the Prime Minister’s latest unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance going to be paid for by cuts to state pensions or cuts to the NHS?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has brought up the Budget; it is about time that he spoke about his plans, because what have we heard from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has confirmed that the Labour party will not be sticking to the Conservative Government’s spending plans, so we now have a litany of unfunded promises on the NHS, mental health, dentistry and breakfast clubs. That does not even include the £28 billion 2030 eco-pledge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still committed to. We all know that while we are cutting taxes, Labour’s unfunded promises mean higher taxes for working Britons.
Keir Starmer
No, the Labour party will not be sticking to the Prime Minister’s completely unfunded £46 billion promise. He thinks that he can trick people into believing that simply shaking the Tory magic money tree will bring it into existence. Let us be clear: 80% of national insurance is spent on social security and pensions; 20% is spent on the NHS. He is either cutting pensions or the NHS, or he will have to raise other taxes or borrowing. Which is it, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
I know that it is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s strong point, but if he actually listened to the Chancellor last week, he would have heard that NHS spending is going up. It is a plan that is backed by the NHS chief executive officer, who says that we are giving her what she needs. At the same time, we are responsibly cutting taxes for millions of people in work, with the average worker benefiting from a £900 tax cut. What I am hearing from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he is against our plans to cut national insurance.
Keir Starmer
We have the highest tax burden since the second world war. I did listen to the Chancellor: £46 billion of unfunded commitments. The Conservatives tried that under the last Administration, and everybody else is paying the price.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised to crack down on those spreading hate. Today, he has shrunk at the first challenge. Last week, he promised fantasy tax cuts. Now he is pretending that it can all be paid for with no impact on pensions or the NHS. All we need now is an especially hardy lettuce and it could be 2022 all over again. Is it any wonder that he is too scared to call an election, when the public can see that the only way to protect their country, their pension and their NHS from the madness of this Tory party is by voting Labour?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about pensions. Pensions are going up by around £900 this year. It is this Government who have protected the triple lock for the last 10 years. He talks about supporting working people. It is this Government who are cutting taxes for every single person in work. It is this Government who are investing in the NHS. All we have from him is a £28 billion unfunded promise. I had a look at “Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower”. It is all there. He is still stuck to it, Mr Speaker, and if you look through it carefully, there is billions in spending that he has already committed to for Scotland, and billions for Wales. There is actually money for north London too, I notice. The problem is that none of it is funded, so why does he not come clean and tell us that under his plans the British people’s taxes are going up?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we stepped in with a £150 million financial lifeline to ensure the survival of premiership rugby league clubs during the pandemic. I am told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with Sport England, as the agent, to talk to borrowers with concerns about their loan agreements—any that have concerns should contact Sport England in the normal way. I can also proudly tell him that we are talking to the Rugby Football Union and the premiership league to secure the future not just of rugby union, but of his local Gloucester rugby.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I begin by wishing Ramadan Mubarak to Muslims across these isles.
The Conservative party has accepted a £10 million donation from an individual who has said that one of our parliamentary colleagues in this Chamber “should be shot.” Why is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom putting money before morals?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the comments were wrong, the gentleman in question has apologised for them and that remorse should be accepted.
Stephen Flynn
This is complete rubbish. The gentleman in question apologised for “being rude”. He was not rude; he was racist, odious and downright bloody dangerous. On Monday, No. 10 said that we have
“seen an unacceptable rise in extremist activity, which is seeking to divide our society and hijack our democratic institutions.”
Is not the extremism that we should all be worried about the views of those Tory donors we have read about this week?
The Prime Minister
No, there has actually been a rise in extremist activity that is seeking to hijack our democratic institutions. It is important that we have the tools to tackle this threat. That is what the extremism strategy will do. I urge the hon. Gentleman to wait for the Communities Secretary to release the details.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to all postmasters who have campaigned tirelessly for justice, including those who tragically will not see the justice that they deserve. Today’s legislation marks an important step in finally clearing their names. Across the House, we owe it to them to progress the legislation as soon as possible, before the summer recess, so that we can deliver the justice that they have fought for. We continue to work with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland as they develop their plans, but regardless of where and how convictions are quashed, redress will be paid to the victims across the whole of our United Kingdom on exactly the same basis.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The future of children’s cancer services in my constituency, and across south-west London, Surrey, Sussex and beyond, will be decided by NHS England tomorrow. The existing service is world leading and has saved the lives of countless children. Many of us who have engaged with the consultation process feel that the wrong decision is about to be made, ignoring risks to children’s cancer care by moving them to the Evelina London Children’s Hospital. If the Evelina is chosen tomorrow, will the Prime Minister intervene personally to delay any final decision until he has met me and concerned MPs from across the House so that he can prevent the risks to our children’s cancer services?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, decisions about clinical provision are rightly made by clinicians in local areas across the country. More generally, we are investing in more oncologists, radiologists and community diagnostic centres, which is contributing to cancer treatment being at record levels, but I will of course ensure that he and colleagues get a meeting with the Secretary of State.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why the strategy, which I urge her to wait for, will be one that she can support. It is our duty to ensure that the Government have the tools to tackle the threat that she rightly identifies and highlights. This is absolutely not about silencing those with private and peaceful beliefs, and nor will it impact free speech, which we on this side of the House will always strive to protect.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that the latest published figures show that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010, partly due to our legally binding targets to reduce concentrations. They will continue to reduce over the following years. On top of that, we have also provided almost £1 billion to help local authorities across the country to implement local plans to reduce nitrogen dioxide and to ensure that we can help those impacted by those plans.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I understand that the latest scheme being considered is to pay migrants thousands of pounds to leave Britain. Let us just leave the European convention on human rights and deport them for free. So far, more than 40,000 Brits have signed my petition with the Conservative Post calling for us to leave the ECHR. Will the Prime Minister commit to leaving the ECHR or, at the very least, have it in our manifesto to have a referendum and let Britain decide?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must do everything we can to secure our borders and ensure that those who come here illegally do not have the ability to stay. That is why our Rwanda scheme and legislation are so important. As I have said repeatedly and will happily say to her again, I will not let a foreign court block our ability to send people to Rwanda when the time comes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister
First, I am pleased that the National Theatre received significant funding from the Chancellor in the recent Budget to support its fantastic work across the UK. However, I am surprised to hear the right hon. Lady raise the NHS, when her party is propping up the Welsh Labour Government, who have absolutely the worst NHS performance of any part of the United Kingdom.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for meeting me six weeks ago to discuss the plight of victims of covid-19 vaccine damage? Following that discussion, and his very sympathetic response during the GB News “People’s Forum” to Mr John Watt, who is himself a victim of covid-19 vaccine damage, will the Government be supporting my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill this Friday?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue and for the conversation I had with him. I extend my sympathies to all those who have been affected. I will of course ensure that he can meet the Secretary of State to discuss his Bill. We are, as I committed to him, looking at the issue in some detail to ensure that our policies are providing the support that is needed.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No, Mr Speaker. I am pleased that the gentleman is supporting a party that represents one of the most diverse Governments in this country’s history, led by this country’s first British Asian Prime Minister.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I look forward to voting later today for a tax cut for thousands of my constituents; a national insurance tax cut that will mean £900 off the tax bill of thousands of my constituents. After listening to the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition today, does the Prime Minister expect that the main Opposition party will vote against this afternoon’s tax cuts?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an excellent question, because while Conservative Members believe in a country where hard work is rewarded and people can keep more of their hard-earned money—which is why we are cutting their taxes by an average of £900 each—we hear consistently from Labour Members that they not only disagree with that approach, but continue to cling to unfunded spending promises that would put taxes up. Also, just yesterday the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), described our plan to end the double taxation on work as “morally abhorrent”. That is the contrast between us and them: Labour will put your taxes up, and the Conservatives will keep cutting them.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
When it comes to the issue of tackling illegal migration, when Parliament expresses a clear view on what it believes should happen and supports that with legislation, and when we believe that we are acting in accordance with all our international obligations, I have been very clear that I will not let a foreign court stop us from sending illegal migrants to Rwanda. That is the right policy and, in fact, the only way to ensure the security of our borders and end the unfairness of illegal migration.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As a general election is not merely an expression of opinion but a serious choice, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is only one potential party of government that has the will, the inclination and the determination to stop mass illegal and legal migration, and that is the Conservative party? Let us unite our movement and do that.
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely. We know this because not only has the Leader of the Opposition opposed the scheme, but he has been clear that even when the scheme is implemented and working, he would still scrap it. That tells us everything we need to know: on this issue, Labour’s values are simply not those of the British people. There is only one party that is going to stop the boats: the Conservative party.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It would not be right for me to comment on individual companies, but what I can say is that our ambitious storm overflow reduction plan is backed by £60 billion of capital investment. We now monitor every single storm overflow across England, and we have legislated to introduce unlimited penalties on water companies that breach their obligations. The independent regulator and the Environment Agency have the powers they need to hold water companies, wherever they are, to account.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Later this year, a new digital EU border system will come in, yet key changes that are required and key details have still not been decided by the EU. Urgent decisions are needed on additional funding and preparation to keep Dover clear and traffic moving through Kent. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assure me that this issue is being taken seriously at the highest levels of Government, and that funding and support will be made available to keep Dover clear, support the residents of Dover and Deal—and Kent—and secure our vital cross-channel trade and tourism?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and I assure her that it is being discussed at the highest levels of Government between UK Ministers and our EU and French counterparts to make sure that we have practical and constructive solutions that will ease the flow of traffic in the way that she describes and benefit her local community.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I have said repeatedly that we are incredibly concerned about the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Too many civilians have lost their lives, and nowhere near enough aid is getting through. In contrast to what the hon. Lady said, actually the UK is playing a leading role in alleviating that suffering. Just recently, we increased the amount of aid this year to £100 million. Just today, 150 tonnes of UK aid is due to arrive in Gaza, and a full field hospital, flown from Manchester to the middle east last week, will arrive in Gaza in the coming days, staffed by UK and local medics to provide lifesaving care. We are doing absolutely everything we can, working with our allies, to bring much-needed aid to the people of Gaza.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the maternity team at the Royal Cornwall Hospital at Treliske in my Truro and Falmouth constituency for all the outstanding work they have done to improve maternity services over the last few years? Their sheer hard work, along with the coming new women and children’s hospital, means that there are no midwifery vacancies in Cornwall, which I think he will agree is a fantastic achievement.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the improvement in maternity services at the Royal Cornwall. She is a tireless campaigner on reducing baby loss, and I commend her for her recent work on the introduction of baby loss certificates. As she knows, we are committed to a new women and children’s hospital for her local trust in 2030, as part of the new hospital programme.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Conservatives in the south-west are rightly championing the reopening of local stations. Cullompton and Wellington will be among the places that receive funding as a result of our decision on HS2. It is because of that decision that we have now freed up billions of pounds of funding to invest in local transport across the country, and local leaders will be put in charge of that money to prioritise their local needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Prime Minister, in the 1930s, one of your less illustrious predecessors, Neville Chamberlain, so denuded the British armed forces of funding, until it was too late, that we failed to deter Adolf Hitler, and 50 million people tragically died in the second world war. Russia has invaded Ukraine, China is threatening Taiwan, and British shipping is being attacked by Houthis in the Red sea. Could you please assure me, as the son of a D-day veteran, and the House of Commons that we are not going to forget the lessons of history and make the same mistake again?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning for our armed forces. He is right to champion them and the role they play. I agree with him wholeheartedly that sadly the world we are living in is becoming both more challenging strategically and more dangerous, and in response to those challenges we must invest more in our armed forces. That is exactly what we are doing, with the largest uplift since the cold war recently topped up with billions of pounds to strengthen our nuclear enterprise and rebuild stockpiles.
My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the threats posed by the Houthis and by Russia in Ukraine. I know that he will be proud of the role that the United Kingdom is playing in both those situations. We are respected and valued by our allies. Most importantly, we on the Government side of the House will do whatever it takes to keep our country safe.
Gas-fired Power Stations
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a statement on the Government’s plan to build new gas-fired power stations.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The second consultation of the review of electricity market arrangements was launched yesterday. It sets out the choices that we need to make to deliver a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2035. Since 2010, the Government have reduced emissions from power by 65% and thus made the UK the first major economy in the world to halve emissions overall. We have built record volumes of renewables, from less than 7% of electricity supply in 2010 to nearly 50% today, allowing us to remove coal altogether by October this year.
Our success in growing renewables is the reason we need flexible back-up for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Our main source of flexible power today is unabated gas. More than half of our 15 GW of combined-cycle gas turbines could be retired by 2035. Meanwhile, electricity demand is set to increase as heat, transport and industry are electrified. We must ensure that we have sufficient sources of flexibility in place to guarantee security of supply. We need up to 55 GW of short-duration flexibility and between 30 and 50 GW of long-duration flexibility. Our aim is for as much of that capacity as possible to be low carbon.
While low-carbon technologies scale up, we will extend the life of our existing gas assets, but a limited amount of new build gas capacity will also be required in the short term to replace expiring plants as it is the only mature technology capable of providing sustained flexible capacity. We remain committed to delivering a fully decarbonised electricity supply by 2035, subject to security of supply, and we expect most new gas capacity to be built net zero-ready. The Government have committed £20 billion to carbon capture, usage and storage, and are developing comprehensive support for hydrogen. In the future, unabated gas plants will run for only a limited number of hours a year, so emissions will be entirely in line with our legally binding carbon budgets.
Caroline Lucas
I am a bit tired of this Government shunning any scrutiny of their climate record and instead relying on a past record, because while the UK may indeed be the first major economy to cut its territorial emissions by half since 1990, we are not on track to achieve our 2030 targets, and if we factor in consumption emissions, the UK has cut emissions by only 23%. So let’s have a little less complacency from the Minister. He will know that the Government’s announcement on new gas-fired power stations does in fact, contrary to what he claimed, risk undermining our climate targets and leaving the country reliant on imports of expensive gas. Members should have been given the opportunity to question the Minister on its implications for the decarbonisation of the UK’s energy system by 2035, with 95% of UK electricity being low carbon by 2030.
First, why was the statement not made in Parliament? Why was it made instead at Chatham House, where Members were not able to question the Minister on the impact of this decision? Secondly, will the Minister explain how this proposal differs from the functioning of the existing capacity market, or will he admit that it is just the Government’s latest attempt to stoke a culture war on climate? Thirdly, the Climate Change Committee is clear that no new unabated gas plants should be built after 2030, so what is the Government’s timeline for developing these new gas-fired power stations?
I asked the Minister about this yesterday in the Environmental Audit Committee; I did not get a response. I also asked him what is being done to ensure that these gas plants are zero carbon by 2035; that was not set out either in the Secretary of State’s speech yesterday or by the Minister today. The Minister did tell the Environmental Audit Committee that the plants would be required to be both carbon capture and storage-ready and hydrogen-ready. That does not amount to a meaningful plan, so will he please give us more than his thus far unevidenced words of assurance, and will he explain what the Government’s plan is to support the development of batteries and long-term storage technologies and to drive innovation so that we can get off volatile gas for good?
Graham Stuart
It is rather odd to be asked about the ability to scrutinise this, when yesterday was the launch of a consultation that will go on for some time and, as the hon. Lady knows, I was in front of the Select Committee yesterday. It is rather strange that she should highlight that point.
The hon. Lady is confused, as she often is, because she is so political. She would appear to set politics always ahead of climate. She struggles to recognise that that United Nations framework convention on climate change rules are about territorial emissions—countries own the emissions in the territory where they take place. Her numbers on embedded emissions are wrong, but she does not care about that; she just carries on with a political diatribe against the Government, who have done more than any other in any major economy on this Earth to decarbonise their economy. And we have done it not as the hon. Lady would have us do it—by being reduced to living in yurts—but while growing the economy by 82%. It is people like the hon. Lady who make people on my side of the Chamber at times think that we are perhaps engaged in some form of madness; we are not, but she doesn’t half make it sound like we are.
Can these new gas plants be consistent with the Government’s commitment to decarbonise the power sector by 2035? Our published net zero scenarios for the power sector—I invite the hon. Lady to read them—show that building new gas capacity is consistent with decarbonising electricity by 2035. From those scenarios we expect that, even with new gas capacity, rather than the 38% of electricity generation which in 2022 came from gas, that figure will be down to 1% by 2035—or, if we follow the scenario set out by the Climate Change Committee, perhaps 2%. We are going to have that as a back-up. It is sensible insurance; it is about keeping the lights on while we carry on the remarkable transformation this Government have achieved in moving from the appalling legacy of the Labour party of less than 7% of electricity coming from renewables to nearly 50% today.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The announcement on gas-fired power stations is extremely welcome, but at the moment a kilowatt-hour of electricity in the UK costs 44 cents, against 17 cents in the US and 8 cents in both China and India. We have become fundamentally uncompetitive because of this green obsession. We want cheap electricity and we should have gas and we should have coal, and we should postpone net zero indefinitely because we are only 1% of global emissions. We are making no difference, and the US economy is growing consistently faster than ours because of cheap energy. This is a good first step against the net zero obsession. We need to go further.
Graham Stuart
I would chide my right hon. Friend with the science and evidence that are emerging all the time. There is a climate challenge and emergency, which is why we are looking to reduce our emissions. He is quite right to challenge that by saying, “We are less than 1% of global emissions, so how does this make sense?” That is why we hosted COP26 and got the rest of the world to commit to following us. We are bringing in the carbon border adjustment mechanism from 2027 precisely to ensure that we create an economically rational system that supports jobs in this country, while meeting the climate challenge that needs to be met.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I am little puzzled about what all this is about. The Committee on Climate Change and all credible energy experts have said that we will need a small residual of unabated gas in the system for the medium term, and that is consistent with a fully decarbonised power system. No one disputes that, and it is barely worth an announcement. We should extend the lives of existing plants to meet that need. If new-build plants are needed in the short term to replace some of those retiring gas-fired power stations, there is no disagreement, provided they are capable of converting to hydrogen or carbon capture, as the Government say they must be.
However, that is not what the Secretary of State said yesterday at the Chatham House meeting. The Government’s own analysis published yesterday shows that 24 GW of existing gas capacity could be maintained via life extension and refurbishment, and 9 GW of new capacity is already in the baseline under existing capacity market arrangements. That is an uncontroversial position and analysis, and hardly something worth making a huge fuss about. But again, that was not what the Secretary of State talked about at yesterday’s Chatham House conference.
Given that analysis, could the Minister enlighten us with the number of new gas plants that the Government are hoping to build, given there is no mention of that in the 1,500 pages of documents that were published yesterday? That is an important point, because it appears to show the Government’s intention to go beyond what is already in the analysis and build a large number of new gas-fired power stations for the future.
There is a great deal in the review of electricity market arrangements published yesterday that is worth discussing, not least the Government’s glaring failure to bring forward low-carbon flexible technologies such as long-duration storage, which everyone knows we will need. It is a shame that the Minister has not properly addressed that. Will he give us clarity on whether this is a meaningless announcement within existing policy arrangements? Or, as has been said, is it an attempt to conjure a culture war out of climate and energy policy, with announcements with no substance or value that show that the Government have no serious plan for energy in our country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman asked whether new power plants will be hydrogen or carbon capture, utilisation and storage ready; we will legislate to make that a requirement. He asked how much there will be; around 5 GW, but that is dependent on so many interrelated things, such as the growth of low-carbon and flexible storage, which, as he referred to we are a world leader in developing and supporting both in innovation and through the capacity market. He suggested that none of that was clear yesterday, but it was made crystal clear.
We are a world leader, having announced £20 billion for CCUS. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because he has been around a long time, that in 2003 the then Labour Government said that carbon capture, utilisation and storage was urgent and that there was no route to 2050 without it, but then they proceeded to do nothing about it. This Government are getting on with it. We are putting our money where our mouth is and developing technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen, in a way that the Labour Government failed to do—as they did with renewables, to boot. All they do is talk about climate, but the truth is that the greatest climate risk to this country is if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) destroys the market and starts some state-run quango, which will wreck the renewables growth that we have seen.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I welcome the announcement. The independent Committee On Climate Change recognises that we will need unabated gas in the electricity market right up until 2035 and beyond, and more widely that even in 2050, 25% of our energy needs will come from hydrocarbons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is exactly the right way to maintain lower energy production costs, while still meeting our net zero targets?
Graham Stuart
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The point is to have a wide range of back-up capacity, but not to use it very much with fossil fuels, and, as I think has long been the case, to ensure that any new gas generation should be carbon capture-ready. We look forward to it being hydrogen-ready, too. We are in a very similar position to Germany and other countries that are looking at exactly that. For instance, I think both Germany and Ireland, as part of their growth in renewables, recognise the need for gas, albeit used less and less, to ensure that the lights stay on and there is appropriate insurance in place.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
What a cluster—it is unbelievable that we are in this situation. In the Secretary of State’s letter to Members today, she said that the Government are taking steps to make sure the lights stay on. That is the legacy of 14 years of the Conservatives in charge of energy. Uncomfortably, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). This is a significant departure, and one we should be alarmed about. Where is the Government’s precious nuclear baseload now? Where is the exemplar of CCUS working at the necessary scale, from which the Government are taking inspiration? Would it not have been an elegant solution to have unabated gas winding down at the same time as battery storage and long-duration pump storage was winding up? We cannot have that, because the Government have dragged their feet on both things. What does the Minister say to people who are having infrastructure for transmission put throughout their communities and are being told to suck it up because that is what we need to get gas out the system, when the same Government are now building gas-fired power stations?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to lead on this subject for his party, should have listened to what I said earlier. In 2022, 38% of generation came from gas. By the mid-2030s, it will be 1% or 2%. Why are we having it? To balance the renewables we are growing, particularly in Scotland, and support Scottish jobs. Of course if we put generation in Scotland when the demand is in the south, we have to provide connecting infrastructure. Previous generations had to wire up the UK to become the rich and prosperous country we are today. We need to do it again now. We are working with local communities, listening to their voices and making sure they are not misled by people who come up with such nonsense as the hon. Gentleman just did.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his refreshingly clear articulation of our strong record in this area, both in the House today and in the media yesterday. Obviously, security of supply must come first. How will the plans incentivise investment in back-up gas-fired power stations, while minimising costs to consumers, which is also very important?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) are absolutely right to focus on the economics. We have to get the economics right. We have used an auction-type mechanism in the capacity market to ensure flexible capacity. We are incentivising more and more of that to be low carbon, with batteries coming in at scale, as well as pumps and potentially hydrostorage. We also need hydrogen and carbon capture. We are ensuring a balanced system with discipline built into it to drive costs down. When CBAMs and so on come on stream, I firmly expect that in the 2030s we will have lower-cost energy than our neighbours and we will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset referred to, be more economically competitive.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—tapadh leibh.
It is concerning that this was announced in Chatham House and not here in the House, and that the Secretary of State is not here today. Off-piste speeches have cost in the past. My Committee heard this morning that an Energy Minister made a speech a decade ago that, with the effect it had on investment, cost 1,000 jobs. The Minister says that this is a consultation, but have the Government picked a winner? What room have they given for storage to be in the mix? Are they confusing energy security—we have learned from the Ukraine war important how that is—with continual electricity supply? Given what the Minister says about the percentage of gas used by 2030 and after, what percentage of capacity will this provide, and what percentage does he envisage will be used day to day? What thought has been given to consideration of other technologies in his gigawatt demand?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I suggested, on different scenarios, about 1% or 2% of total generation coming from gas in future, compared with 38% in 2022, on an annualised basis. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman should know better than anybody here with his deep knowledge of the subject, it is based on intermittency. It depends on how much the sun shines and how much the wind blows, but we will ensure we have a robust system. That is exactly what we are doing. I would love it if people could celebrate this country’s global leadership and the fact that we are driving this forward, especially those such as members of the Green party, who are supposed to care about climate change. We are doing this in a way that maintains security of supply and, by bringing in more and more renewables, with the lowest-cost and most flexible system to back it up, doing so in a more and more economical fashion.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I welcome the announcement today. It is pure common sense. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we need security of supply. Although we need to deal with climate change in the medium to long term, we must also deal with security of supply in the short term, so I welcome the announcement. Does the Minister agree that for medium and longer-term security of supply, we must upscale what we are doing in the hydrogen sector, with more hydrogen production and usage, and be a world leader in hydrogen? For the moment, we are slipping behind a bit.
Graham Stuart
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of hydrogen. Where I disagree with him is that, having seen the projects in hydrogen allocation round 1—eight projects, I think—I do not think there is any indication that we are slipping behind. The truth is that the whole world needs to do this, because everyone’s analysis, from the International Energy Agency to the Climate Change Committee to my own Department, suggests that hydrogen and carbon capture are necessary to bring about the decarbonised system we seek. He is absolutely right on the importance of hydrogen. He can expect more developments, because this country is leading on that, as it is on CCUS.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and his knowledge of the subject, and the fact that he, like most of us in this Chamber, recognises the need to cut carbon. I am sure he is not one of those who, like the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, would follow the flat earthers. But clearly, a great deal of trust and reliance is being put on carbon capture and storage, and on hydrogen. Both are still quite new technologies. We have talked about this stuff for 25 years. The Minister seemingly forgets that this Government have been in power for the past 14 years and we are still not off the blocks on hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Is it not the case that the Government are taking this position because it is a nod and a wink to the gas and oil industries whose support they will probably need before the election this year, and that this is part of the whole agenda of placating the right wing of his own party?
Graham Stuart
I was with the hon. Gentleman nearly all the way. He is right: the whole world is looking at carbon capture and hydrogen, because that is what the science says. Everybody who analyses it says that we need it bur that it is not yet at a great level of maturity. Just as in so many other areas, this country is leading the way. We have cut emissions more than anyone else. He knows the dire legacy left by his party in 2010, with less than 7% of electricity from renewables, which was just appalling, and the real danger if we go back to that. That is why we have gas power as a back-up, so that we have a completely sound system. We will seek to deliver a decarbonised system by 2035. The biggest risk to that would be if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North were to come in and start to mess with a system that has lifted us from the back to the front of climate leadership. That is the real danger, and that is what we need to avoid.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend stop by South Derbyshire, specifically the Willington site, which already has planning permission for a new gas power station, and cut the ribbon when it opens? We want spades in the ground, so I welcome the announcement. I invite him to come and have a look at that site, which is ready to go.
Graham Stuart
I agree with my hon. Friend and I applaud those who are investing in our system. We have made ourselves one of the most investable countries in the world for clean energy. Gas has an important part to play in that balance, and with the development of carbon capture and hydrogen there is every opportunity for such assets to have an even longer life in a green fashion. I would love to come and see my hon. Friend.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Oil and gas are the energy sources of the past, and we need an intermittent energy source. Gas power plants are not intermittent. They sit there, and then because there is too much renewable energy it is shut off, and gas—the carbon energy—continues to flow. That is the reality of today: we are wasting renewable energy. The Government do not recognise that reality, and do not respond to it.
My question is this, however. How many times have Ministers met representatives of the oil and gas industry, and how does that compare with the number of meetings with representatives of the renewables industry?
Graham Stuart
As so often—the hon. Lady does it spectacularly well—she is completely and utterly wrong. Renewables are turned off, as she would say, because of constraints within the system, and gas is turned on because the system could not cope otherwise. That is why we have the transmission acceleration action plan and the connections action plan. [Interruption.] Every time we try to build out the infrastructure, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) opposes it. He says that he and the Scottish National party want to be a friend of the renewables industry and Scottish jobs, but then he opposes the infrastructure that is required for it.
Graham Stuart
I meet representatives of the oil and gas industry a lot, because the truth is that even given our world leadership—and we have cut emissions by more than any other major economy on the planet—75% of our primary energy today is still from oil and gas. We will still be dependent on oil and gas in 2050, when we are at net zero. That is why it is so crazy that the Opposition parties, including that of the hon. Lady, believe in opposing licences when we are actually dependent on the product. All that ending licences would do is lead to the loss of British jobs and the import of higher-emission products from abroad. I really do hope that Opposition Members will think a bit more deeply and we can hear some common sense. I hear it in the Corridors from Back Benchers, but from the Front Benchers and the hon. Lady I hear nothing but nonsense.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome this policy decision, which is a recognition of reality. Can the Minister confirm that the new plants will be able to convert to low-carbon alternatives in the future?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend. We will be legislating precisely to create exactly that obligation for carbon capture and/or hydrogen readiness.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I hope that this decision is indicative of a realisation that seems to be slowly dawning on the Government about the impact of the madness of their net zero policy, which has damaged the UK economy. We have higher electricity prices than most of the other G7 countries, we have lost vast numbers of jobs in energy-intensive industries, and now it has been recognised that because of the intermittency of wind and solar there is a risk of blackouts.
I welcome this common-sense decision, but given that we are going to use gas to power these stations, why does the Minister not take the next logical step and legislate to allow us to tap into our vast UK gas resources? As the United States has shown, that would bring down prices, give us energy security, and make our economy more competitive.
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong: we have record levels of employment, and we overtook France recently to become the eighth largest manufacturer in the world. I would not expect him to join the dismal party opposite in talking this country down. In truth, we are leading the world in tackling climate change, and we have created more jobs than at any time in British history. Going forward into the 2030s, by harnessing more and more British low-carbon, renewable energy we will lower bills for families and increase our competitiveness. As I have said, in a world that is increasingly recognising the need for action and seeking to introduce measures such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism—effectively, carbon taxes at the border—the UK is in pole position to grow from its already strong economic position into an even stronger one as a result of the net zero policies of this Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Across London and the south-east, many much-needed developments that are required for the increasing population have literally been frozen because of a lack of supply from the grid. Nuclear power can provide the baseload; renewables are unreliable, and obviously gas is required at peak times in particular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is all about topping up the grid at peak times, when people want to use electricity, because gas is the fastest way to bring a power station on to the grid and is also the fastest to shut down?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend will be aware of all the work we are doing to speed up transmission. We are halving the timeline from 12 to 14 years to seven, and the connections action plan has already moved forward connection dates for projects amounting to 40 GW. We are putting in a lot of work across the piece. This gas capability is there as a back-up, but the usage and the emissions resulting from it will fall precipitately over the next 10 years, and we can all celebrate that.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
After their years of delaying meaningful investment in clean, cheaper, reliable renewable energy technologies such as tidal and long-duration pumped hydro storage, it is no surprise that the Government are now having to scramble to create new dirty gas-powered plants. How much does the Department estimate the new plants will cost, where is it suggesting they should be built, and what does the Minister mean by carbon-capture-ready? Does he mean carbon-capture-operational?
Graham Stuart
As I have said, further legislation will come forward in the not-too-distant future, and the hon. Lady will be able to scrutinise it—but it is extraordinary that she should say of a country whose renewable energy generation has risen from less than 7% to approaching 50% that we have gone slow on renewables. We have decarbonised our power system faster than any other major economy on the planet.
The reality denial that we hear from the Scottish National party is quite extraordinary. The hon. Lady highlighted tidal energy. Well, guess which country in the world uses the most tidal energy. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is one of the greatest champions of tidal, could tell the hon. Lady, if she is really so ignorant. He is a fellow Scottish MP, and he could tell her that the UK has more tidal deployment than any other nation. We are proud of that, we are proud of the transformation, and it is about time the SNP and the Labour party stopped misleading the people and the House.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister said earlier that we faced a climate challenge, after struggling for words to describe what we are facing. Why can the Government not join the global consensus and admit that what we are facing is a climate emergency? As the Secretary-General of the United Nations has said, the year of climate warming is over and we are in an era of climate burning.
Graham Stuart
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not primarily concerned with words—I am primarily concerned with action—but in fact I did use the “emergency” word. I do not know whether I broke some golden rule which says that Ministers should not use it, but I do treat this as an emergency. I see the world warming up, I see the negative impacts of climate change, and that is why I spend every single day feeling proud to be part of the Department that is decarbonising its country faster than any other in the world. The hon. Gentleman should get away from rhetoric and start to focus on action.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all his answers. While there is certainly an urge to prioritise our net zero promises, I am grateful to the Government for taking back-up precautions into consideration. As the Minister has often recognised in responding to questions from me, Northern Ireland plays an important role in our contribution to meeting the net zero targets. Will he therefore ensure that Northern Ireland is prioritised as a leading location for any new gas-powered stations that are to be built?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman sometimes gives the impression that he would like me to be running the energy system in Northern Ireland, but it is devolved—and we have Ministers there again, which is a cause for celebration. I will work closely with Ministers in Northern Ireland, as I do with Ministers in other devolved Administrations, because if we are to meet our net zero targets, Northern Ireland must deliver its own targets. Scotland has to deliver its targets, as does Wales.
We must work together, in a spirit of collaboration. We can do that, and if the hon. Gentleman can persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is sitting beside him, that it can be done in a way that strengthens our economy as well, we really will have something to celebrate.
Post Office Legislation
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about Post Office legislation and the Horizon redress schemes.
I am very pleased to be able to announce that today we are introducing a new Bill that will quash the convictions of postmasters in England and Wales affected by the Horizon scandal. As set out in my written statement last month, this legislation will quash all convictions that meet a clear set of conditions. Those in scope will have their convictions quashed on the day that the new legislation is brought into force. Subject to parliamentary passage, our aim is for Royal Assent to be received as soon as possible before the summer recess.
We accept, and have always been clear, that the legislation may overturn the convictions of some people who are guilty of genuine wrongdoing, but we believe this is a price worth paying to ensure that many innocent people are exonerated. However, the Government will seek to mitigate the risk of people receiving financial redress when they have not been wronged.
The Government also accept that this legislation is unprecedented. It is an exceptional response to a factually exceptional situation. I want to be clear that this does not set a precedent, and neither is it a criticism of the judiciary or the courts, which have dealt swiftly with matters brought before them. The fact remains, however, that three years after the first convictions were overturned, only around 100 have been quashed. Without Government intervention, many of these convictions could not be overturned, either because all the evidence has long been lost or because, quite simply, postmasters have lost faith in the state and the criminal justice system, and will not come forward to seek justice.
The legislation will apply to England and Wales only. However, we are fully committed to working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive through regular, weekly official-level engagement to progress their own approaches. I have met my counterparts in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to offer support and address their concerns, and I will have further meetings. The financial redress scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, once convictions have been overturned.
I thank the Business and Trade Committee, which recently published a report that includes some recommendations for the Government regarding Horizon redress. We will respond to them in the usual way, but today I would like to address two of the Committee’s recommendations. The first is that responsibility for redress should not lie with the Post Office, as it should be subject to independent oversight—something that has also been recommended to us by the Horizon compensation advisory board. I can announce today that the Department for Business and Trade, rather than the Post Office, will be responsible for the delivery of redress for overturned convictions. Final decisions on redress will be made by independent panels or independent individuals.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall return to the House at a later date to provide details on how we intend to deliver redress for those who have their convictions overturned by the Bill or via subsequent measures taken in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are discussing the details with the advisory board. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), will introduce legislation to make any payments made via the new scheme exempt from tax.
Secondly, the Select Committee recommended that the Government introduce legally binding timeframes to deliver redress for sub-postmasters, with financial penalties for non-compliance. I strongly support the Committee’s desire to speed up redress, but we feel that its proposed regime would have the opposite impact. It would potentially mean imposing penalties on forensic accountants or others who are helping postmasters to prepare their claims. Doing that would probably cause some of them to withdraw from this work, which would slow down the delivery of redress. Furthermore, we do not want to be in the position of rushing postmasters into major decisions about their claims and the offers they receive, which would possibly mean that some are timed out of redress altogether. The advisory board has said that its “strong view” is that
“this would be a backward step”,
which is why we passed legislation less than two months ago to remove the arbitrary deadline from the group litigation order scheme. We do not want to reverse that change.
However, the Government are acting to ensure that redress is delivered as quickly as possible. First, we are working with claimants’ lawyers to reduce the number of cases that require expert evidence—for example, from forensic accountants—or medical evidence, which delays claims. We will pilot that approach and, assuming that the pilot succeeds, we hope to expand it rapidly.
Secondly, the advisory board and I have asked for monthly reports on each scheme. They will come from schemes’ independent case managers, where such managers are in place. We will publish the reports, which will give us the best basis on which to assess measures for speeding up redress.
Finally, we are introducing optional fixed-sum awards. In January, the Government announced that they would offer an optional fixed-sum award of £75,000 to those in the group litigation order scheme. As of 5 March, 110 offers have been accepted, and over 100 people have taken the £75,000 fixed payment. Of those who have accepted the fixed payment, three quarters are new claimants, so the fixed offer has already meant that over 100 claims have been resolved promptly. In some cases, those people will have got more than they would have asked for. The fixed offer has also had a helpful effect on other claims, because it substantially reduces work on small claims by claimants’ lawyers, making more resource available to progress larger claims more quickly.
I am pleased to announce today that the £75,000 fixed-sum award offer will now be extended to the Horizon shortfall scheme, to ensure that everyone is treated fairly across all the schemes. Those who have already settled their claim below £75,000 will be offered a top-up to bring their total redress to that amount; over 2,000 postmasters will benefit quickly from this announcement.
We are mindful that claims are not being submitted to the GLO scheme as swiftly as we would like. We have already announced the optional fixed-sum award of £75,000, but to ensure that we get help to claimants more quickly, I can announce today that anyone who chooses not to take that offer, and instead submits a full claim for individual assessment, will have their interim payment topped up to £50,000 straight away.
Many postmasters’ lives have been ruined by the Horizon scandal, and we are working hard to deliver redress. We have set up the Williams inquiry, which will discover the truth. We will provide fair financial redress as promptly as we can, and we will exonerate those who were so unjustly convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I commend this statement to the House.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Before I respond to it, I would like to put on the record my deep disappointment at the Minister’s comments this morning on “BBC Breakfast”. He failed to categorically condemn the Tory party donor Frank Hester’s horrific and racist remarks about the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Despite No. 10 finally, after much delay, describing the remarks as “racist and wrong”, the Minister appeared to contradict that position this morning.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a statement on Post Office legislation. May I respectfully say that what the hon. Lady is saying is irrelevant to this statement?
Rushanara Ali
I will move on. I simply hope that the Minister will reflect on the reversal of the statement he gave this morning, in which he took the position that he would take a donation from that donor. I hope he reflects on the impact that the issue is having on many of us.
I turn to today’s crucial statement. The Horizon scandal is truly shocking, and is one of the most devastating miscarriages of justice in British history. The scandal has brought devastation to the lives of hundreds of falsely convicted sub-postmasters. Over 20 years on, they and their families still suffer from the consequences and the trauma of all that they have been put through. I pay tribute to them for their determination in pursuing justice, and to Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters who pioneered the campaign and worked tirelessly to seek justice. Without their bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work, to Lord Arbuthnot for his campaigning on this issue for many years, to others in this House and the other House, and to members of the Business and Trade Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne).
We of course welcome the legislation that is being laid before Parliament today, but before giving a full verdict on it, we will need to properly scrutinise the details and analyse its potential impacts. In the first instance, the legislation leaves a series of outstanding issues, and the question of when justice and compensation will be delivered, and to whom. First, I will address the territorial scope of the legislation, which currently applies only to England and Wales, even though the Post Office is not devolved, and the Horizon system and the impacts of the scandal are UK-wide.
Approximately 30 cases need overturning in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a series of outstanding questions remain as to when sub-postmasters in Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland will receive justice and compensation. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be regular dialogue with the devolved Administrations, but I would be grateful if he provided more detail on how that will work in practice, given the different legal processes.
As we know, 80% of the redress budget is yet to be paid out. There remains considerable uncertainty about when sub-postmasters will receive their compensation. I am sure that we can all agree that they have waited long enough, and the delays are causing further financial distress and suffering. We note the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that there be a legally binding timeframe for the period between an offer being first tabled and a settlement being reached. If those legally binding targets are not adopted, what assurances can the Minister give that he will meet his target of ensuring that all compensation is out of the door by the end of the year? What mechanisms will he put in place to ensure that there are no further delays? I know that he is committed to ensuring that there are no further delays, but sub-postmasters will want to know that this will actually happen.
Given the recent chaos in the Post Office’s leadership, we welcome the decision to take the Post Office out of the redress process. As the Minister said, redress must have independent oversight. The Post Office is in disarray, and we need focus and efficiency in ensuring that compensation is paid to the sub-postmasters as soon as possible.
Financial redress alone cannot come close to repaying sub-postmasters for their suffering, though it is so important that we get it right. The very least the Government can do is ensure that sub-postmasters receive fair compensation and exoneration as soon as possible. There are those impacted by the scandal who have sadly passed away, and did not live to see their innocence proven or to receive the compensation that they deserved. It is vital that the Government act with the urgency and speed that is needed to correct this terrible injustice.
Kevin Hollinrake
The shadow Minister’s comments are on the record, so I shall deal with them briefly. I think this is the second time she has made comments at the Dispatch Box that have been unfair or factually incorrect, and I hope that she will correct the record. If she had actually watched the interview I gave, she would know that I absolutely did condemn the words of Mr Hester. I said they were wrong. I said they were racist, and I think it is absolutely right that he has apologised. She should watch the full broadcast, and I hope that she will apologise to the House and correct the record.
The points that the hon. Lady raised pertain largely to the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved Administrations. I quite understand the concern around those issues, and I am very keen to ensure that we get this right across the United Kingdom. As she acknowledges, there are different legal processes in those areas, and we think it would be inappropriate for us to legislate for parts of the United Kingdom that have different legal processes and different prosecutors. Justice is devolved, although the Post Office is a UK-wide organisation, as she rightly says. That is why we think the legislation should allow devolved Administrations to legislate for themselves, if they choose to. We will work closely with them. Officials meet them weekly to assist wherever we can, so that compensation can be delivered UK-wide; that is how the scheme operates.
I think the hon. Lady said that 80% of compensation was yet to be delivered. I may be wrong there, so I will check the record. Across all the schemes, in around two thirds of cases, full and final compensation has already been received. That being the case, about 2,000 people will be topped up to £75,000, as I announced earlier, but it is not right to say, as I think she did, that the majority of people are waiting for compensation.
The hon. Lady asked whether we wanted to deliver the compensation by the end of the year. Absolutely we do, but as I said, not everything is in our gift. We cannot compel a claimant to submit a claim, or know when that will happen. If somebody puts in a claim right towards the end of the year, for example, it may not be possible to deal with it before the end of the year. Not everything is in our gift, but we are keen to expedite anything that is.
It is absolutely critical that we have independent oversight; all schemes have it. In the overturned conviction scheme, we have retired High Court judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom, and the £600,000 fixed-sum award; but on Mr Hickinbottom’s advice, we have also introduced the £450,000 payment as soon as a full claim has been submitted. We are doing everything we can to make sure that people are compensated as quickly as possible.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the pragmatic way that he has looked to speed up claims, and to take this in-house as best he can. I also welcome the proposed legislation, and the extension of the £75,000 to those in the historical shortfall scheme. I point the Minister to an article in The Times this morning about people who may reportedly be excluded from the legislation. Can he give any assurances that people who have gone through this process and whose original conviction was based substantially on the Horizon problems will indeed be exonerated and therefore able to get compensation?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for his tireless campaigning in this area, and for his tireless work as my predecessor in this role. He did some great work to help us get where we are today. He is right to say there are some people who are not exonerated through this process—for example, people who have been before the Court of Appeal—but they will be able to appeal again in the light of our legislation. Of course, they had the right to do that anyway, but we will support them where we can in bringing forward their case to the Court of Appeal, and we very much hope that innocent people who follow that process will be exonerated.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for being slightly late. I thank the Minister for giving me prior sight of his statement. I welcome the announcement of the legislation. It will hopefully go a long way to speeding up full and fair financial redress for a large number of Horizon victims, and will bring them closer to justice. Furthermore, I welcome the enhanced financial redress for those who experienced Horizon-related shortfalls, and the fact that those who have already settled for less than £75,000 will have their redress topped up.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his hard work on this, to the Horizon compensation advisory board for its sterling work, and to Sir Wyn Williams and his inquiry for their ongoing work. Most of all, I pay tribute to the victims, following the unimaginable pain that they have been forced to endure at the hands of Post Office Ltd and successive UK Governments. I hope that today’s announcement can give them some hope, and that there is an end in sight to this sorry chapter.
I welcome the administration of financial redress schemes being taken out of the hands of Post Office Ltd —not before time. Post Office Ltd has demonstrated obfuscation and incompetence at every stage. From a Scottish perspective—I am sure my Northern Irish colleagues will agree with me—I am deeply disappointed that the legislation is confined to England and Wales only. That needs to be addressed. We should include Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure parity. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign, but the Scottish Parliament can be challenged on its legislation, and this needs to be looked at.
The devolution process also risks slowing things down. Will the Minister guarantee today that any relevant orders under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 will be processed quickly by his Government? Scotland has no direct equivalent Minister for postal affairs, as only Westminster and his Department have a remit for the Post Office. Will he ensure that the Bill contains provisions requiring Post Office Ltd to fully co-operate with the Scottish Government and to supply all needed materials? It is vital that victims in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not have to wait any longer for justice than their English and Welsh counterparts. Victims across these isles suffered enormously at the hands of a wholly reserved institution, so complete parity is essential.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady again for all her work in this area. She has been a tireless campaigner. We would all like to be further along, but she has made an important contribution to our work.
The hon. Lady is right to say that victims should be front and centre when it comes to compensation, which must be delivered fairly and as quickly as possible. Some of the changes I have announced today, including in my statement, have been brought forward on the basis of feedback from victims and their legal representatives. We are listening to them, and we will make sure that we deliver any changes where we can.
I fully understand the hon. Lady’s point about Scotland and Northern Ireland, and she will understand the constitutional sensitivity of this area. These are tough decisions, and I understand that Scottish Ministers will have to make similar decisions. They can decide to do what we are doing and, if they do, we will support them in how they legislate. Given the sensitivities, we thought that, where justice is devolved, the devolved Administrations should make the decision. I again commit to making sure that we work across the piece, wherever we can, to deliver the consistent compensation that she requires, without forgetting that the redress schemes are UK-wide. As soon as people’s convictions are overturned, they will be able to access compensation, just as they can in England and Wales.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Everyone wants to see the sub-postmasters’ suffering brought to an end as swiftly as possible, and I welcome what the Minister has said about simplifying and speeding up the compensation scheme. He will know that claimant lawyers such as Neil Hudgell, who gave evidence to the Business and Trade Committee, have real expertise in this field, and I hope he will work very closely with the sector to maximise that expertise in designing the scheme.
I sound one note of caution. The Minister says this is exceptional, and it is constitutionally unprecedented to overturn, through legislation, convictions imposed by our courts in good faith, based on the evidence before them at the time. Frankly, it is most undesirable that we should ever go down that route.
Some of us will need to see the detail of the legislation and what evidence the Government have that it will be quicker and more comprehensive to quash convictions via this constitutionally unprecedented route, rather than leaving the courts to deal with it, with assistance. As the Minister knows, this could have been dealt with via a presumption in favour of sentences being quashed where they depended on Horizon evidence, rather than this wholesale measure. In particular, will he look at what impact it will have on rehabilitation of offenders legislation, and at whether convictions quashed by this Bill will be removed effectively so that people can, for example, travel to the United States or other foreign jurisdictions where they may need a visa, for which they need to show that they do not have an outstanding conviction?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and all his work on this subject. Our engagement with him throughout the process has been very important. He has much expertise in this area.
We agree that this is unprecedented and undesirable, but we believe it is the least worst option. We want to see this delivered more quickly as, of the 790 or so sub-postmasters whom we believe this legislation will affect, only around 100 convictions have so far been overturned. We think that situation is untenable, which is why we decided to take this route. Of course, I will continue to work with him and listen to his wise advice.
I think I am right in saying that, for convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal, the record is marked “Overturned by the Court of Appeal”. We foresee these records being marked in a similar way—“Quashed by Parliament” or something along those lines. Again, I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend to make sure we get it right.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for the collegiate way in which he is working across the House to try to secure justice for those who have suffered.
This is a welcome step forward. I am glad to see the Minister taking on board some of the recommendations made in the Business and Trade Committee’s report last week, setting out how we can deliver fair, fast and independent redress. The Government have today proposed how they will overturn convictions. They have taken the Post Office out of some, but not all, claim processing and, crucially, they have increased the number of people who can apply for fixed-term remuneration. However, the Post Office is still handling the claims of at least 100 people with overturned convictions when it is patently not fit for purpose.
For those who seek to contest their claim, the Minister says there will be no legally binding timeframe between the submission of a claim and an initial offer being made by his Department, which is a problem. There is no standard tariff proposed for compensation under key heads of terms, such as loss of reputation. That, too, is a problem. The Bill is far more than a half measure, that is true, but it is not yet a full solution.
I leave the Minister with the words of Jo Hamilton, who messaged me last night to highlight the plight of the GLO litigants, in particular, and the way in which they
“have to justify every last penny even if some of their claim is for actual monies stolen from them by the Post Office… Why can’t the Government do the right thing before even more victims die?”
Those words need to ring in our ears as we seek to perfect this Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and collaboration. It is important that we listen to his Committee’s recommendations and its very informative evidence sessions—I sat through all five hours.
At this point, we believe the Post Office should continue its work on the 100 or so cases before it. We currently have no capacity in the Department to handle those claims, although we clearly will by the time the Bill comes into effect. We do not want to pause between the Bill coming into effect in July and compensation payments being made. We think we can get those payments to people in August using that route.
There may be some people left in the first tranche of overturned convictions, for people who have been through the Court of Appeal. We will certainly look at the Committee’s recommendations on whether we should bring those cases back in-house or leave them with the Post Office. We will keep an open mind on that.
We already have fixed timescales to respond to offers or service level agreements in the GLO scheme. We commit to responding to 90% of full claims within 40 days of submission. I am happy to look at how we might put some benchmarks in place to make sure the new scheme has a similar speed of response. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said about our new pilots under which lawyers can submit claims without forensic accountants and medical reports. That may do something along the line he says, and I will happily have an ongoing conversation with him.
Thus far, 128 of the 490 claims have been submitted to the GLO scheme, and 110 of them have been settled. To my knowledge, only one claim has gone to independent dispute resolution before going to the independent panel, which hopefully indicates that, generally, the offers are fair and have been accepted almost straightaway.
I understand what Jo Hamilton says, and I met her to discuss some of the processes she had to go through to prove her claim. We are determined to reduce those frictions and evidence requirements, certainly for things that are not essentially material. There are three things that we have to get right in delivering compensation: we have to be fair to the individuals and families affected; we have to be fair to all the other sub-postmasters to make sure there is consistency across the scheme; and, of course, we have to be fair to the taxpayer. There is no cap on what we will pay people, as long as it is fair.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statement to the House, as it clearly moves things in the right direction for closure. I have talked many times in this House about similar issues. The Government have put £1 billion aside to deal with all this, despite the fact that the Post Office has taken millions upon millions off postmasters—innocent people. We have never had the figure of what was taken, although I have asked for it before. I want a second figure, because Fujitsu has said on the record that it would help to compensate victims as well, by adding to the remuneration pot. What progress have we made on making Fujitsu pay also for being culpable in this fiasco?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his regular contributions in this area, as it is always good to have the views of the only former serving postmaster in this House. We are looking to try to identify the figure he refers to and we hope to come back to him at some point; it is complicated, as a lot of these records go back a long way. However, that is a body of work we are undertaking with the Post Office. The Secretary of State had a conversation yesterday with the global chief executive of Fujitsu; we are keen to make sure that Fujitsu contributes and it has already said that it will—it said it has a moral responsibility to contribute. My hon. Friend mentions a figure of £1 billion, but we do not know the final figure for compensation. However, we would expect a significant element of it to come from Fujitsu.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Like others, I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement but, novelly, I also thank him for advance sight of the Government “top lines to take”. That latter document includes this passage:
“So far we have identified up to around 800 cases that are potentially in scope [Note: if we use this number in public we are going to get held to it. There is a risk that we may deliver fewer overturns or award redress”—
to—
“fewer individuals, we will then have to explain that]”.
If it is the view of officials in the Minister’s Department that accountability and transparency are some sort of problem, does he really think that they are best placed to exercise oversight of the compensation scheme? Should that not be put now in the hands of someone who is independent of both Government and the Post Office?
Kevin Hollinrake
The figure the right hon. Gentleman uses and the document he references, which I was unaware he had, are interesting. Me being me, I had not read that line, although my previous comments might indicate that I had because I mentioned that exact figure. I am not afraid to be transparent or accountable for any of the delivery of these compensation schemes.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all that he is doing, working night and day to bring this painful issue to a conclusion for the many postmasters and their families who have suffered so much over so many years. Where people do not accept the fixed offer but wish to pursue an individual claim, may I seek his assurance that such claims will be treated expeditiously, and that resources will be made available to deal with those claims quickly and efficiently? Will he also give an assurance that claimants will have a named individual responsible for their file, rather than whoever happens to pick up the file on a specific day?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and can absolutely give him the assurance he seeks. A fixed-sum award is only one route; it is not right for everybody. Some people have higher levels of claims, and we will support them where we can. In my remarks, I announced new measures we are using to do that, including a pilot scheme where expert reports are not required. That should significantly abbreviate the timescale between being able to submit a claim and getting a response. As for expediting in this area, in the GLO scheme we set a target that in 90% of cases we would respond to a final claim within 40 days. Currently, we are on 87% against that measure, so we are delivering this more quickly. He makes an interesting point about a named claim manager or something along those lines, and, if I may, I will take that away with me.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, the legislation and the removal of the Post Office from the process to the extent that we have seen so far. However, I do not think the Post Office is able to deal with any claims credibly. I wrote to the Minister on 12 February about my constituent who came forward after the TV programme. She had had problems with Horizon, had agreed compensation with the Post Office, which was way below what her losses were, and had signed a non-disclosure agreement. At the time she had been dealing with a terminally ill partner, who has since passed away, and so was in no fit state to take on the Post Office. She is seriously out of pocket, so I would expect her to be able to fall under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the letter he will doubtless send me.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have not seen the letter the hon. Gentleman mentions yet, but I look forward to it and I understand his points about the Post Office handling claims. I am responding personally to every letter I get on this matter from colleagues; we always do that, but I am doing so even more on this occasion. I am sorry to hear about his constituent and the situation she is in. If she has accepted less than £75,000, she will get an automatic uplift to £75,000. We are determined to ensure that, across every scheme, people are treated fairly and feel that they are being treated fairly, and I am keen to look at the hon. Gentleman’s letter and make sure that is the case for his constituent.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I welcome this important new Bill. I know that the Minister and his team have worked exceptionally hard to make it happen. Will he join me in thanking Mr James Evans from Llanfair P.G., who worked as a sub-postmaster in Llanfairpwll for 47 years, with a post office service record of 60 years, for bringing together sub-postmasters and those on Ynys Môn affected by this gross miscarriage of justice to ensure that they receive the correct support, compensation and, importantly, exoneration?
Kevin Hollinrake
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this, and I absolutely thank Mr Evans. We are here now because the victims of this scandal are supporting each other, led of course by Alan Bates. So I welcome Mr Evans’s work, and if I can assist him or his group at all to make sure that they get compensated fairly, whatever their circumstance within these schemes, I am happy to do that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My constituent Mr Ennion ran the post office in Llandovery in Carmarthenshire between 2000 and 2018. In a recent BBC interview he estimated that he had lost about £75,000, and said that, in addition, his health has deteriorated severely. He said he had no faith in the Horizon shortfall scheme and making an application to it, because he has not kept any records and because he just does not think he is well enough to take on the Post Office for a second time. I know that the Minister is working extremely hard, and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done, but what more can he do to encourage people such as Mr Ennion to make an application through the scheme?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for representing his constituent so effectively. I hope that what we have announced today will be absolutely the right route for his constituent, as it means he would not have to go through what can be a complex process of submitting a detailed claim; he can simply opt for the £75,000 fixed-sum award and walk away. There is no claim form to be filled in—a simple letter needs to be signed and that is it. If he feels he should be compensated for more than that, he can go through the Horizon shortfall scheme. That takes a little longer, but he will still end up with compensation both for the financial impact and the impact on his health. I am happy to help, wherever I can, with his case.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He promised the House that he would bring forward legislation quickly, and he has done so. However, I must express the disappointment of all Northern Ireland representatives that Northern Ireland is not included in the Bill, and the reasons that the Minister has given for that do not stand up.
The Minister has argued that this is a sensitive constitutional issue—it is not. The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister have all made it clear that they would be quite happy for Northern Ireland to be included in the legislation. He has argued that the systems are different. There have been many occasions when Northern Ireland has been included in legislation here even though the judicial system is different. This Bill is about exonerating people, not about interfering with how the system works. The last thing he said was that including Northern Ireland might slow down the legislation. Since the legislation is going to go through the House following the normal process, there is absolutely no reason why, as has happened on previous occasions, he could not include a Northern Ireland clause at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill.
I ask the Minister to look again at the arguments he has made, because I do not think they stand up. There is a way forward to ensure that those affected in Northern Ireland are treated in the same way, and at the same time, as those in England and Wales.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his contributions, and for representing his constituents, and others in Northern Ireland, who have been affected by the scandal. I understand his point and am very sympathetic to it. We took a very difficult decision. Clearly, we are happy to work with the authorities in Northern Ireland. As I said in the statement, I have spoken to my counterpart in Northern Ireland. We are today introducing a 10-clause, 10-page Bill, and we hope we have put together a relatively straightforward piece of legislation. We are happy to lend our support so that Northern Ireland is able to do the same as we are doing, if that is the choice that is made. As he has outlined, that is the political consensus in Northern Ireland, which I welcome.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
This is a national scandal that requires a national solution. As has just been stated, the political leaders in Northern Ireland are unanimous that they want Westminster to act in this sphere. The Minister will not be stepping on anyone’s toes constitutionally if he proceeds on that basis. The Justice Minister advises me that what is required to include Northern Ireland is relatively straightforward. It is not complicated in any shape or form. The stark reality is that the newly restored Executive does not have the capacity to pass such legislation at the same time as Westminster, so there will be an iniquity across the UK on this reserved matter. Can I ask the Minister one more time to listen to the voices from Northern Ireland? I understand that he says he will work with the Executive, but will he take on board what the Executive are saying and include Northern Ireland in the Bill?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. To reiterate what I said in response to earlier questions, we are very sympathetic. We are keen to lend support, and not just moral support but help in drafting the Bill. Of course I will continue to listen to him and others with similar views about the involvement of the devolved Administrations. We are keen to make this work UK-wide. The redress schemes will be available UK-wide, if we can get those prosecutions quashed on a UK-wide basis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister and pay tribute to his perseverance in bringing about a legislative change. It is fantastic to hear that the legislation will quash convictions relating to the Horizon scandal. This has been a long time coming and those affected must be praised for their long journey to justice. However, unfortunately there are many who have not lived to see this. What steps will he take to ensure the legacy of those who were affected but have passed away will live on, and that their families are supported through the redress payment scheme, to lessen the years of pain that they have endured?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the issue, and for his regular contributions on this and many other matters. The legislation has taken too long, as he rightly says, and sadly some people have passed away, which is terrible for the families. Those people will never live to see their convictions quashed and names exonerated. The redress schemes work for the estate, so if somebody has passed away, the family can come forward and submit a claim, or they can choose a fixed-sum award and pursue their claim in that way, which is a quicker process. That happens for families in the sad situation the hon. Gentleman outlines. I am happy to work with him to ensure that we deliver for his constituents.
Point of Order
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some advice on how I can pursue an urgent response from the Secretary of State for Education? I wrote to her on 28 February, outlining urgent concerns about King’s Leadership Academy, a secondary school, being unable to open in my constituency despite the Department for Education providing a DfE unique reference number and DfE number, both of which are required for the local authority to offer in the admissions brochure.
The Department recently went on to instruct the local authority to remove King’s Leadership Academy from the admissions process. Parents have now been informed that the academy will not open in September and their children have been allocated secondary schools that were not one of their preferred choices, causing distress and logistical nightmares. It is completely unacceptable not to have received a response on a matter of such urgency, and unacceptable for the Department not to have raised any potential issues earlier. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. As Mr Speaker has said many times, the Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ answers. However, Mr Speaker has also said many times that he expects, and that Parliament expects, Ministers to provide timely answers to questions from Members. It sounds as though the hon. Lady has had difficulty in that regard. Although I cannot answer her questions, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and that the matter will be passed on to the relevant Minister. I can advise her that the Table Office will be able to offer guidance on how she might pursue the matter further, if she wishes so to do.
Bill Presented
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Claire Coutinho, Secretary Lucy Frazer and Laura Trott, presented a Bill to provide for the quashing of convictions in England and Wales for certain offences alleged to have been committed while the Horizon system was in use by the Post Office; to make provision about the deletion of cautions given in England and Wales for such offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 181) with explanatory notes (Bill 181-EN).
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Designation)
Wednesday 13th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sites of special scientific interest (designation) Bill 2023-24 View all Sites of special scientific interest (designation) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer the power to designate sites of special scientific interest from Natural England to the Secretary of State; to make provision about the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
I am conscious that I stand in the way of legislation that will provide a tax cut for 29 million people, so I will not detain the House for long.
Sites of special scientific interest are the most precious natural landscapes in this country, and they are vital to our biodiversity. Their importance has long been recognised—long before the word “biodiversity” was coined. For 75 years, additional protection has been given to areas that are of special interest by reason of their flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.
The current system of notification was put in place by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That law, as amended, gave the decision to designate an area as an SSSI to Natural England, and Natural England exists
“to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations”.
That important aim is now at the heart of Government decision making. In fact, the Environment Act 2021 goes further and says that the Government as a whole must have regard to environmental principles; not just conserving or even just enhancing the natural environment, but actually restoring nature. That being so, there is no longer any reason for decisions about the notification of SSSIs to be outsourced. No protections would be lost if this power were transferred to the Secretary of State, which is why I am bringing in this Bill.
I hope that Ministers will note that the Bill is supported by a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, two former DEFRA Ministers, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and several other MPs who have demonstrated their support for and understanding of our natural environment, and how that can be enhanced in harmony with producing the food the nation needs.
Should the Government adopt the Bill—and I hope they do—there will still be a place for Natural England in identifying sites for designation and collating the data and scientific evidence, but it would be for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to interrogate this evidence and decide whether Natural England is correct in its assessment.
At the moment, Natural England is marking its own homework, and the experience of farmers in my constituency is that it could do better. Last year, 3,044 hectares of West Penwith were confirmed as a site of special scientific interest. It was no surprise that Penwith moors and downs were identified as a candidate for notification. It is the most beautiful part of the world—I happen to live right on the edge—with unique heathland that provides a habitat for many rare species, including birds such as the Dartford warbler, which has a breeding population; invertebrates such as the rare Perkin’s mining bee and the tormentil nomad bee; and vascular plants such as the coral necklace.
It is also a man-made landscape, with a long history of agriculture and livestock grazing, with many of the 4,000-year-old field systems still being used for their original purpose. The farmers on the land know that the richness of Penwith moors is the result of their careful management of the land for many years, over multiple generations, and so they were shocked by the high-handed way in which Natural England approached the designation.
In October 2022, SSSI notification packs landed on the doormats of landowners and farmers, and, contrary to our expectation, close to 1,000 acres of clean land—pastures, paddocks and land on which crops or even animal feed could be grown—were included. The notification documents did not include clear evidence or reasons why their clean land had been included. It became very clear that Natural England’s case relied on scientific evidence that was not much more than desktop studies and old survey data.
To take an example, after Natural England’s hearing last year, which I attended, its experts admitted that they did not have evidence to include the 700-plus acres of good pasture farmland—by this time, more than 200 acres had been successfully challenged by landowners and removed from the SSSI—and that the only reason for including clean land was “the potential for pollution”. Probably even less clean land would have been included had all landowners had the funds to mount a legal challenge.
The theory was that excess nitrate in surface water would reach the valley mires to the detriment of the special flora and fauna. This was highlighted by Farmscoper, a free desktop tool that offers generic assessment, but with the disclaimer that its results should be checked by on-site testing. That testing was not carried out prior to notification and, as far as I am aware, the checks are yet to be carried out. Likewise, bird surveys were undertaken for a year, not the three to five years specified by Natural England’s own guidance, and invertebrate surveys relied on a single year, rather than the three years that it should have been.
Natural England could have easily engaged constructively with farmers and landowners to establish a more robust scientific case for designating accurately any area that justifies such a significant level of protection—it did not. Even at the public hearing in June last year, the chair of Natural England, its legal team and senior officials refused to accept responsibility or ownership of these failures, and pressed ahead with notification. It is not accountable to the farmers, to members of the Government or to Members of this House.
Why does this matter? Because now, following confirmation of the SSSI, farmers are subject to the same Natural England staff dictating how they operate their farms. That includes their demanding that farmers apply for consent to milk cows or keep livestock. There is the risk that farming businesses will become unsustainable, which will impact on the rural economy and food security, while no meaningful benefit to the environment is delivered. Farmers are already selling their businesses.
I will give just one example of a farm in my constituency. This farm has two fields with a mixture of acid pasture, ferns and heather, and grassland, which Natural England included in the SSSI with the rest of the farmland and which is already in Natural England’s higher level stewardship scheme. The farmers objected to the inclusion of the two fields, which were used for winter feeding of yearling Red Ruby Devon heifers. As far as Natural England was concerned, there was no boundary between the rough land and the main grass pasture, and so all of it was in the SSSI and hence under restriction.
The farm naturally decided not to squander money on a fence, but to reduce stocking levels. What is shocking is not just that the farm is losing out from unjustifiable restrictions—I shall talk about the economic benefits later—but that these restrictions will do the reverse of what is intended. Reduced grazing on the moorland will make way for invasive species such as brambles and rhododendrons to take over, and this will actually reduce biodiversity, unless the state is prepared to spend large sums of money on eradication.
My Bill would allow the Environment Secretary to interrogate the science and scrutinise Natural England’s decisions. My experience from engaging with the Department is that it fully understands the concerns that I have raised, including on the viability of farms if good farming land is included without assessing its risk to the rough land. It is Natural England that seems to have ridden roughshod over farmers’ countryside management and their understanding of how to care for their natural environment. This is not the only part of England where serious tensions exist between Natural England and organisations and individuals who have devoted their lives to the careful stewardship of the countryside.
My Bill would also give the Secretary of State the power to consider other factors in designation—factors that Natural England cannot consider. Last year, I spoke in an Adjournment debate about the way in which Natural England did not consider—and could not consider—the social, cultural and economic implications of notification. As I have stated, Natural England was not concerned with the viability of the farms, and it was not concerned with the rural properties off the grid for which boreholes are the only source of water. Boreholes in SSSIs can only be used with Natural England’s consent.
The Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), agreed with me, saying:
“It is high time that we looked at how those protections impact the economy and the social and cultural side of farming, and we will be doing just that. If we are to truly halt the decline of nature, we need our farmers to do all they can for environmental stewardship.”—[Official Report, 18 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 1211.]
It is indeed high time, and my Bill would give the Environment Secretary the power to do so. If our farmers are to do all they can for environmental stewardship, they need a Department that will support them. They need a Department that is responsible for SSSIs and the funding to support landscape recovery, and a Department that can strike harmony between the public goods of conservation and food production, and the need to ensure that farms are viable and that the rural economy thrives. The notification of a SSSI impacts on the environment, food and rural affairs; it should therefore be the responsibility of DEFRA to make that decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Derek Thomas, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Trudy Harrison, Philip Dunne, Sir Robert Goodwill, Steve Double, Selaine Saxby, Sir Bill Wiggin, Greg Smith, Simon Jupp, Maggie Throup and Mark Menzies present the Bill.
Derek Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 180).
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(10) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(15) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(19) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Joy Morrissey.)
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No.2) Bill
Wednesday 13th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 March 2024 - (13 Mar 2024)
16:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 43 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Scottish National party leader has been selected.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
For the second time this year, we are cutting taxes for 29 million working people across the country—something that is particularly remarkable in the aftermath of the worst pandemic in 100 years, the worst war in mainland Europe since 1945, and the highest energy spike since the 1970s. The Government have had to take difficult decisions to restore the public finances, and those decisions are starting to pay off. Our economy is growing, and debt is forecast to reduce. Inflation is down significantly, unemployment is at near-record lows, and wages are rising. As the outlook improves, our priority is to return money to working taxpayers while keeping the public finances on track.
We believe that the tax system should be fair and simple, and should reward hard work, yet the way we tax people’s income is particularly unfair. People who get their income from having a job pay two types of tax: national insurance contributions and income tax. People who get it from other sources pay only one. The result is a complicated system that does not support work as best it could. For that reason, the Bill will build on the changes to national insurance contributions in the autumn statement.
The Bill contains two measures: a reduction in the NICs employee class 1 main rate, and a reduction in the NICs class 4 main rate. Both measures are important. Allowing working families to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible is a priority for the Government. The Chancellor has always been clear that when we can cut taxes, we will.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a great speech, and I fully support the Government’s efforts to reduce the taxes of working people, alongside the pledge to increase the money going to pensioners through the triple lock. Does he agree that it is disgraceful that, while the Conservatives are working hard to cut taxes and help working people, Labour is increasing the share of council tax for all Londoners, and hitting drivers with charges of up to £12.50 per day thanks to the ultra low emission zone?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is consistent in holding the administration in London to account. He is right: as we are still not out of the woods when it comes to the cost of living crisis, the Conservative party has made it clear that we disagree with the Mayor of London’s approach of making motorists poorer.
As I said, building on the changes in the autumn statement, we will once again be supporting working families by reducing the main rate of employee class 1 NICs by two percentage points to 8% on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270 from 6 April 2024. That will cut taxes for over 27 million employees. The average worker on £35,400 a year will save £450 a year, and the majority will see the benefit in their payslips at the start of the new tax year. Taken together with the cuts to NICs in the autumn statement, this tax cut is worth some £900 a year to the average worker.
In addition, we are implementing a further reduction in the main rate of class 4 NICs for the self-employed. The Chancellor announced in the autumn statement that the main rate of class 4 will be reduced from 9% to 8% from 6 April. Today, we are cutting the rate by an additional two percentage points from 8% to 6% from April 2024. That is a total cut of three percentage points in just six months. Combined with the abolition of the requirement to pay class 2, which was announced in the autumn statement, that will save an average self-employed person £650 a year, and benefit over 2 million people across the country.
Together with the autumn statement cuts, this is an overall tax cut worth some £20 billion per year—the largest-ever cut to employee and self-employed national insurance. Because of the action that we have taken, the average earner in the UK now has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975. The Government are committed to tax cuts that reward and incentivise work and that grow our economy sustainably and boost productivity. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the national insurance cuts announced in the spring Budget will increase the total hours worked by the equivalent of almost 100,000 full-time workers by 2028-29. Because of the cuts, just over 30,000 people will move into work. These reductions in tax will drive more people to seek employment. This is our plan for a simpler, fairer tax system that makes work pay.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful Conservative speech about the importance of not just cutting tax but getting more people into work. Has the Department estimated how much more tax revenue will come in as a result of more people working because of these changes, so that we can show that lower taxes actually increase tax revenues for the Exchequer?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. A fundamental benefit of reducing tax is that it improves growth in our economy, because more people will be in work and working longer hours. That obviously generates more productivity for our economy, and ultimately more tax revenues for the Exchequer. It is a fundamental Conservative principle that we want lower taxes, and we are delivering that today because it is fiscally responsible to do so, and we are able to do so.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful case for cutting taxes, a fundamental Conservative principle. The Bill will put £960 back into the pocket of the average worker in Southend, who earns £36,400, and will put £1,920 back into the pockets of a family in Southend with two people on the average wage. Does he agree that that is a considerable and welcome tax cut for hard-working people in Southend?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. I would add to those figures: since 2010, we have lifted millions of people across the country, including in Southend West, out of paying any tax at all by doubling the point at which people start paying tax in our country. People can now earn £1,000 a month without paying any tax, and that is a great achievement of a Conservative Government.
Although I welcome the fact that Labour Members will apparently vote for our tax cuts today, I hope that they will forgive me for sounding slightly sceptical about their sudden conversion to the cause of lower taxes for working people. While they do not oppose the measures, they also did not propose them. In fact, Labour has consistently voted against successive Conservative-led tax cuts between 2010 and 2021, which delivered a doubling of the personal allowance, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). On the one hand, they bemoan the level of taxation, but cannot tell us a single tax that they propose to cut, or what the level of taxation would be under Labour. On the other hand, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), described our ambitions to remove unfairness in the tax system as “morally abhorrent”. Labour Members still cannot tell us how they will pay for their many spending commitments. They are completely all over the place. It is only the Conservatives who truly believe in reducing taxes on working people.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister is giving a clear explanation of why the Conservatives want to cut tax, and the economic benefits of cutting taxes for working people. He will know that the origins of national insurance were basically a form of social insurance: having paid national insurance, it would look after us later in life. The Labour party took the insurance out and put the socialism in, which is why we have ended up with a system that is essentially the same as income tax. As we think beyond today’s welcome cuts to what is in the Opposition new clause, has the Minister thought about using any further cuts to go into the compulsory savings of individuals introduced under the coalition Government after 2010—essentially building, in place of a dependency state, a savings state built on Conservative principles?
Gareth Davies
Yet again my hon. Friend makes a valuable contribution. I commit to taking his idea away to consider, as we look at reducing the unfairness in the tax system in future and reducing national insurance contributions when it is prudent and responsible to do so.
The Labour party is completely all over the place on this. As a Conservative Government, we have delivered a clear message to the British people, and it is based on the delivery of the lowest personal taxation level since 1975. We have almost doubled the personal allowance, bringing the lowest earners out of paying any tax at all, and we have delivered a thriving jobs market, which is ultimately the best way to ensure that people are brought out of poverty.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I hope to speak a bit later on this. I may have a slight difference of opinion with the Minister on tax cutting, but I want to deal with the facts as I see them. He is making a great amount of noise about the tax-cutting vim and vigour that his party has had over the past 10, 20 or 30 years, or even longer than that—it is meant to be something that goes to the heart of the Conservative party—but according to the OECD, for every £1 generated in the UK, the Government collect 35.3p of it as tax. That figure is projected to keep on increasing to 37.7p by 2029, despite this 2% tax cut. Can the Minister explain how, if the Conservatives are the party of tax cuts, actual tax levels will in fact be going up, according to the OECD? How do the Government square that circle?
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that, because there has been a lot of noise from the Labour Benches, too. It is true that we have had to make some difficult decisions about overall taxation on the back of the pandemic, but today we are cutting taxes on work, because that is the way to grow our economy. As I said, we now have the lowest personal taxation level since 1975. Some taxes have gone up, absolutely—supported by the Labour party—as we have increased tobacco duty and other items, for example, but we are focused on ensuring that if people are in work and have a job, their tax level will be reduced. Today, that work of reducing tax on work continues. We are cutting taxes for millions of people across this country. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by saying that the official Opposition will support the national insurance reductions before us. We have long said that the tax burden on working people is too high and should come down in a responsible way. In fact, when the now Prime Minster was pushing through a national insurance increase two years ago, we opposed it. Labour has consistently said that we want taxes on working people to be lower. Just as we supported the reductions in national insurance in January, we support the further measures announced in the Budget last week that are before us today.
The truth is, however, that neither the national insurance cuts nor anything else in the Budget changes the fact that people across Britain are worse off under the Conservatives. The Government are giving with one hand, but are taking far more with the other. Figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that for every £5 that working people will get back from the Government’s national insurance cuts, they will be losing a total of £10 thanks to the Conservatives’ tax plan. That tax plan will leave the average household £870 worse off and will drag 3.7 million more people into paying tax by 2028-29. Last week’s Budget confirms that, even after the changes we are considering today, the tax burden will continue to rise in each and every year of the forecast period, with the UK still set to have its highest tax burden in 70 years. That is the reality of Britain under the Conservatives, and that is why people across the country are saying it is time for change.
The national insurance reductions in the Bill were mentioned by the Chancellor toward the end of his Budget statement last Wednesday. The cuts had of course already been confirmed in the media by Government sources in the days before, so they came as no surprise. Many of us in the Chamber were wondering whether the Chancellor would follow the time-honoured tradition of ending his Budget by pulling an unexpected, and as yet unannounced, rabbit out of the hat. It turns out he did have a rabbit, but even after all the chaos of the Conservatives over the past few years, many of us could not quite believe what we were hearing: the Chancellor’s big pitch to the British people in the last Budget before the general election was a £46 billion unfunded tax plan.
As people across Britain continue to suffer the impact of the disastrous mini-Budget of 2022, the Conservative Chancellor announced that he would go into the general election with a plan to abolish national insurance, leave a £46 billion hole in the public finances, put family finances across the country at risk, and create huge uncertainty for pensioners. It is frankly the height of irresponsibility for the Chancellor to use the opportunity of last week’s Budget—an opportunity that should have been used to set out a long-term plan to grow the economy—to follow in the footsteps of his reckless predecessor with a £46 billion unfunded tax cut.
In fact, though, perhaps my comment is unfair to the Chancellor’s predecessor, because even he now seems to be critical of the current Chancellor’s approach. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) told the BBC’s “Politics Live” that he thinks the Chancellor should indeed spell out how he will pay for the abolition of national insurance. It is quite something when the Chancellor who crashed the economy after his disastrous mini-Budget publicly calls on the current Government to be more responsible.
The truth is that promises of unfunded tax cuts have nothing to do with growing the economy, and everything to do with propping up a weak Prime Minister who is desperately trying to survive in a divided Conservative party. This reckless behaviour shows that the Conservatives are blindly putting party first and country second. For the good of the economy and of the millions of hard-working people who are still paying the price for the disastrous mini-Budget, I urge Treasury Ministers when they respond finally to come clean about how they will pay for their £46 billion unfunded tax plan.
Over the past week, we have seen Ministers struggle with that question. The day after the Budget, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions implied that he did not feel the need to explain how the commitment would be funded as it was only “an aspiration”. On Sky News that day, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury seemed to think that the Conservatives do not need to explain how they will fund their promise as it may “take several Parliaments”.
The position of the Prime Minister and Chancellor is clear, however. In an email to his party members on Budget day, the Chancellor confirmed that abolishing national insurance would be a priority for the next Parliament, if the Conservatives win. The next day, he suggested that that could be achieved by merging national insurance into income tax, a move that raises the prospect of a huge tax hike for pensioners. On the Saturday after the Budget, the Prime Minister confirmed again that abolishing national insurance would be a priority for the Conservatives in the next Parliament, if they are still in Government.
Let us be clear: this is a £46 billion unfunded tax plan. It is a plan that comes from the top of the Conservative party about what they would do in the next Parliament. It comes straight out of the same playbook as the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget that crashed the economy. This unfunded plan is yet more chaos and recklessness from the Conservatives. Only Labour will bring stability and security back to the British economy.
If Treasury Ministers disagree that their party is the reckless party, they can clear this up today by explaining how they will pay for their £46 billion tax cut. Will it be funded by higher income tax? Will it be funded by cuts to public services? Will they push up borrowing? The Conservatives’ unfunded tax plan blows a £46 billion hole in funding earmarked for the state pension and the NHS. They need to come clean today about what that means for people’s tax bills, pensions and public services.
To be fair, the Chancellor has at least hinted how he thinks that the Conservatives could pay for the abolition of national insurance: his proposal to merge national insurance with income tax. Of course, taking that route and replacing the revenue from employee and self-employed national insurance contributions with greater basic and higher rates of income tax would mean rates of income tax going up by 6.5%. That would hit all income tax payers and cause particular alarm for pensioners. Under the Chancellor’s planned merger, pensioners—who do not currently pay national insurance—could see an average tax hike of about £800 each. A retired pensioner with an income of £25,000 from a mix of private and state pension paying an extra 6.5% on their income above the personal allowance would see their income tax bill rise by more than £800.
Furthermore, national insurance contributions are what determine people’s entitlement to the basic state pension. The Conservatives’ plan to abolish national insurance in the next Parliament would sever the link between contributions and pension entitlement. Will the Minister explain, under their plan to abolish national insurance, how people will know what their future entitlement to the state pension will be? What would be the basis for state pension entitlement without employee national insurance contributions? Does their plan mean the end of the state pension as we know it? I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give clear answers to all those questions, or else confirm that the Conservatives have dropped their unfunded plan to abolish national insurance altogether.
Alexander Stafford
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman. He comes from a professional background, and, compared with most people on the Labour Benches, normally knows what he is talking about. However, I want to follow his logic when it comes to what he claims is a reckless potential abolition of national insurance. If abolishing all national insurance is reckless and will lead to the country going to hell in a handcart, as he so wants to portray it, why is Labour not opposing a reduction in national insurance? Surely, if he does not oppose a reduction in national insurance, his argument completely falls down, because that means that national insurance can be got rid of.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—I think. He misses the point. The commitment by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and, I think, the Treasury Ministers, although they seem to oscillate a little in their position, is to get rid of national insurance entirely—to abolish it at a cost of £46 billion—but they are refusing to say how that would be funded. We saw what happened in autumn 2022 when unfunded tax cuts were proposed by the Conservative Government: it crashed the economy and pushed up people’s mortgages and rents. That is the risk of the Conservatives to the British people, that is the risk to the economy, and that is why we need a general election.
If the Conservatives want to move on from this discussion, they should give assurances on the matter when they respond to the debate. If they do not give those assurances and are not able to distance themselves and rule out their plan to abolish national insurance, we will know that they have essentially given up on governing, are incapable of acting responsibly, and are putting their party before the country with their reckless plans.
As I said at the start of my speech, we will support the Bill because, after 14 years of the Conservatives and 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone, the tax burden on working people is too high. Labour wants the tax burden on working people to come down in an economically and fiscally responsible way. However, let us be clear about the context of this Bill and the changes it makes to national insurance. Even with the Bill’s national insurance cuts in place, households across Britain are set to be an average of £870 worse off as a result of the Conservatives’ tax plans, and the tax burden in the UK is still set to rise to its highest in 70 years.
To make people better off and support public services, we need a plan to get the economy growing. We needed last week a Budget with a long-term plan to bring about growth and help to rebuild our public services. That is what the country needs, and that is what Labour is offering with our plan to grow the economy through stability, investment and reform. That is not what we saw last week, however. According to the British Retail Consortium, the Chancellor did
“little to promote growth and investment”.
The British Chambers of Commerce said this morning:
“the UK stills lacks a clear industrial strategy to unlock long-term growth.”
Faced with a record tax burden, failing public services and no plan for growth, we see the Conservatives grasping desperately for positive headlines by announcing a reckless, irresponsible and unfunded £46 billion tax plan.
I wonder whether the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), approves of this plan. Maybe she feels outdone, with this unfunded tax plan coming in at £1 billion more than hers. Either way, the conclusion is clear: chaos and recklessness are the currency of the Conservatives. Only Labour will bring stability, security and responsibility back to the economy, and only a general election will give the British people the chance to vote for change.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
There is quite a lot to say after the contributions from both Front Benchers, which I will come to in a minute. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I support the reduction in the rate of national insurance. I will use my time to discuss longer-term tax reforms that should be introduced.
Before I speak to the cuts and changes to national insurance that are the basis of this important Bill, I will, if I may, make some observations on the debate thus far having heard both Front Benchers. This is a very serious issue; we are speaking about fiscal matters that affect all our constituents across the United Kingdom, at a time when we should be really honest with the British people. We should level with them: taxes have gone up. I do not think that they want to hear trivial arguments from this House about who is outscoring whom. A degree of maturity is needed right now, because these have been difficult times, post-pandemic and off the back of Russia-Ukraine and everything that has followed. We need to look at what is being proposed in a constructive way. The irony of today’s debate—I will touch on wider public spending—is that tomorrow we will be here talking about estimates. Given the book and the numbers that I have gone through this morning, a lot more can be done to ensure that Government spending is much more efficient, but we will save discussion that for tomorrow.
This is an important Bill. It follows clearly the decisions that previous Conservative Chancellors have taken to reduce the taxes taken from national insurance. Members who review the details of successive Budgets since May 2010 will note that the Government have progressively reduced the national insurance tax burden in recent years—Members may recall that the employee threshold level was £5,725 back in 2010, so that has been the trend. Two years ago, the increase in the primary threshold jumped from £9,568 to align with the tax-free threshold—with which I like to think we in this House are all familiar—of £12,570 in 2022-23. That 2022 change alone has already put around £330 per person back into the pockets of hard-working families. The changes at the autumn statement—which, if I remember rightly, were well debated on the Conservative side of the House, while the Opposition were a little absent—meant that average earners would be around £900 better off.
Alongside that, I also welcome the reduction in NICs for those who are self-employed. As an Essex MP, the majority of my constituents are self-employed. Over 80% of my constituents work in self-employed small and medium-sized firms. Those who are self-employed and pay class 4 contributions, including many of my constituents, make a huge contribution to our economy. We should reflect on that. More always needs to be done—that is fact—to grow the economy, on supply-side reforms, and to stimulate employment, but the measure is huge for those people because it gives them security in employment, and that is a fundamental principle that we should all work to. It is a big difference and tax cut.
The impact of raising the income tax-free threshold from the £6,475 in 2010 to £12,570 today was significant because it was worth over £1,000, or 20% of the £6,095 increase. The £900 average from the cuts to national insurance in the last two fiscal events is significant. We should all recognise what that means not just for the economy but for the money in people’s pockets. Those measures will have helped taxpayers to keep around £2,400 more of the money they earn. Let me be frank: that is not just good; it is valued and welcome. As colleagues have already touched on, those are timeless Conservative values that fulfil our mission to deliver economic freedoms and lower taxes, notwithstanding the tax backdrop of recent years.
I listened to the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and I always welcome his contributions and enjoy our debates. Our approach to national insurance and easing the burden contrasts with what we saw under the previous Labour Governments, when we saw increases. We need to work collectively to be on the side of hard-pressed families right now. That is absolutely crucial. I could go back to the Budgets of Gordon Brown and list some of the calamities that took place, but what is the point? We have to speak about the fiscal—[Interruption.] No, we have to speak about the fiscal footprint that we have now, about the Budget resolutions that we voted on last night, and about this Bill in particular. It is really important that we stand by our record, our commitment to lowering taxes on income, and our ambition to go further.
This will be a debate—I have no doubt about that. I have stood in this Chamber before saying that we should go further on tax reforms, and I believe that. I have even suggested previously that we look at merging NI and income tax, and previous Conservative Governments have looked at that as well. As all Members know, including Opposition Front Benchers, it is not straightforward; it is complicated, and some of the points that have been raised today indicate why. However, I believe that we have to continue on this pathway. Without recapping the Budget debate that we have had in recent days, it contains important fiscal measures that mean that the public will be better off, including the fuel freeze, but the direction of travel is also important. Treasury Front Benchers hear a lot from me and other Members about this issue, and I know they would like to go further in reducing the tax burden. They know my personal views on public spending, which I believe is far too high right now and needs addressing, but we also need to think about long-term reform.
If I may, I will touch on the ambition expressed by the Chancellor to end the double taxation on jobs, and the suggestion that national insurance is either phased out or subject to reform. I have been a long-standing campaigner for lower and simplified taxes, and I am on the record as having even looked in the past at a merger. George Osborne looked at that during his chancellorship, as did the Office of Tax Simplification—that is well documented and on the record. Although those plans were not taken forward because of the complexities I have touched on, it is important that those debates continue, because we need to simplify our tax system in this country. As Conservatives, we must always look to do that; we must always stand up for not just lower taxes, but simplifying the tax system. I say that as the new tax year is due to begin, with people still getting letters from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For businesses in particular, the burdens that they face and the complexities involved in tax returns are mind-blowing.
Both national insurance and income tax are taxes on income, and the thresholds at which they are both paid are now aligned at £12,500 per year. That is something that we need to look at—I have made that point before. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) touched on the contributory principle of national insurance as set out in the National Insurance Act 1911 and further measures following the second world war. Those measures were brought in to support health and medical benefits and unemployment benefits, and the receipts raised are paid into the national insurance fund investment account. That distinction in the way that national insurance is raised and dealt with, compared with other taxes—which end up in the consolidated fund—has stood the test of time. I think all Treasury Ministers, those on the Front Bench today and others, recognise that. That distinction is ingrained in the fabric of our tax system and the thoughts of many of our constituents.
We are now starting the debate about lower taxes and how we can simplify the tax system, and I genuinely believe that this is an important Bill. It is a very important signal in terms of supporting the self-employed and hard-pressed families around the country, and the Government’s direction of travel is very welcome. Through this debate, we are starting to provide a clear, distinct Conservative way forward and Conservative approach. We have had debates over the past week about high-tax, high-spending policies; those debates and discussions are not going to go away. Public spending is over £1.2 trillion. We have to be mature in the debates we have in this House, and about how as a Government we prioritise public investment but spend taxpayers’ money wisely. I am pleased that this Bill has been brought forward, and I hope it will start a positive direction of travel when it comes to reducing the overall tax burden on hard-pressed families.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill because, while acknowledging that the measures in the Bill reduce the National Insurance Contributions (NIC) burden on some employees, it considers the Government should prioritise investment in public services spending over yet more cuts in spending which would be the result of lowering tax revenue by reducing NIC rates.”
The amendment stands in the name of my group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn); my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry); and myself and other SNP Members.
The Bill is the wrong measure at the wrong time. We are quite comfortable having clear water between us and the Conservatives. When it comes to tax, they have a different ethos and ideology from ours. What is distressing, though, is the fact that the Labour party seems wedded to some of the fiscal rules and public sector cuts that the Tories have introduced. In fact, it is difficult to see a significant difference between the two parties at this point, whereas SNP Members are making a clear statement that we do not agree with this measure. We do not think it is the right time to introduce it, and we think the focus should be on public services.
The national insurance cuts will have a disproportionately positive impact on higher earners and a disproportionately negative impact on lower earners. Lower earners, higher earners, middle earners and non-earners are all able to benefit from access to universal public services. They are able to benefit from accessing an NHS that is free at the point of use—in Scotland, that is, not in England, where people have to pay prescription charges. They are able to benefit from their children being able to go to schools and get educated, from colleges, from mental health services, and from potholes being filled and bins being emptied. Everybody can benefit from all of those things; those public services are universal. Cuts in public services and continued austerity mean that the lowest earners and those who are not earning lose out the most, because those public services mean more to them than they do to people who are earning £120,000 a year. There have already been 300,000 excess deaths in the UK from austerity—this cannot continue.
To give an illustration, the national insurance cut means that a band 2 NHS staff member will pay £343 less in national insurance next year than they did this year. For an MP, the national insurance cut is worth £1,320, nearly four times what that NHS staff member will get. For someone earning £11.44 an hour and working 20 hours a week, the national insurance cut means nothing—they do not benefit from that cut at all. It is almost the least progressive measure that the Government could have taken at this point. It also does not impact pensioners: they do not pay national insurance, so none of them will gain from this cut.
In Scotland, we are doing what we can to protect people’s incomes through a council tax freeze, whereas the UK Government are allowing a council tax hike. Someone who lives in Lancashire will pay £79 extra on their council tax next year; someone who lives in North Tyneside will pay £92.37 extra. That is not to mention the water rates, which are significantly different in England from what they are in Scotland.
It is not just us in the SNP who are saying this. I want to contribute several quotes from various organisations about the Chancellor’s budget, the ruin in public services that will result from it, and its disproportionate impact. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:
“Last year nearly 4 million people in the UK experienced destitution, including 1 million children. The number of people experiencing destitution has more than doubled in the last 5 years. A 2p cut in National Insurance will not help those who need it the most”.
Miatta Fahnbulleh, former chief executive of the New Economics Foundation, said:
“Key take away from #Budget24. Household incomes won’t recover to pre-pandemic levels until 2025. An entire Parliament where incomes will not have grown. That’s @RishiSunak’s record right there.”
Harry Quilter-Pinner, director of research and engagement at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said that this was a
“‘slash and crash’ budget that prioritised tax cuts now at the expense of crashing public services and investment in the future. This isn’t economically desirable, fiscally credible nor politically popular.”
Rachael Henry, head of advocacy and policy at Tax Justice UK, said:
“We have the sugar rush of tax cuts now that will be paid for by deep public spending cuts to come.”
Andrew Harrop, general secretary of the Fabian Society, said:
“High earning households will be up to £1,500 a year better off after two rounds of National Insurance cuts and the wealthy will see sizeable tax cuts on profits from property sales and ISA investments. Meanwhile low earners gain little or nothing from the tax changes, and many of the poorest will actually see their incomes drop with the scrapping of cost of living payments.”
Chris Thomas from the IPPR said:
“As of Autumn statement 2022, the government expected NHS revenue spending to be £180.4bn in 2024-5 and capital to be £12.6bn. For all the talk of NHS investment by CX just now, the Spring Budget 2024 expects equivalent figures to be £179.6 and £12.6bn”.
That is less—less money for the NHS than was announced in the autumn statement.
Victoria Benson, the chief executive of Gingerbread, said that
“we urgently need to see an uplift to Universal Credit to protect those on low incomes who have been struggling for too long”.
Alison Garnham, the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said:
“This was a Budget all but blind to buckling family budgets and broken public services and will leave a legacy of crumbling classrooms, cold homes, and empty tummies.”
Lastly, and most damningly, the Samaritans said:
“The Government has chosen to waste another opportunity to save lives today.”
In Scotland, we prioritise public services. In the SNP, we prioritise public services. Per 1,000 people in Scotland, we have 8.4 nurses or midwives, while England has only 6.3 nurses or midwives. Our nurses are also paid more than they would earn in England in an equivalent band, and those earning under £28,000 a year are taxed less than they would be if they lived in England. In NHS Scotland, we have 28.9 wholetime equivalent staff per 1,000 of the population, but NHS England has only 22.9 staff. We have put in place the baby box, which is a universal gift to new parents to provide extra support for their children. We have the Scottish child payment, which has kept 100,000 kids out of poverty. We have free buses for under-22s, eligible disabled people and the over-60s, and we have P1-5 free school meals.
What happened to those who are just about managing? This Government have done amazing things for them: they have managed to massively increase the number of people who are just about managing; and they have managed to tip so many people from just about managing into absolutely not managing and living in desperation. People want their bins to be collected, their potholes to be filled, their children to be educated and their NHS to be available when they need it. They want all these services to be available to them. The cuts that the Tories are making to public services will damage even further the society we are living in. People will lose the very little support measures that they have left, and I absolutely condemn this decision and this Bill.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the reduction in the tax on jobs. The level of overall taxation in our country is too high. The reason it is so high is primarily the huge expenditure the country, by general agreement, incurred to tackle the covid lockdown. This is why I find the Opposition’s criticism of this Government’s tax record so difficult to grasp. After all, they wanted us to lock down tougher and they wanted us to lock down for longer. While a lot of money was rightly offered by this Government to individuals and companies to replace their lost incomes —colossal expenditure on a scale we have never seen before—Labour wanted to spend more on those causes, as well as wanting the lockdown to go on for so much longer.
What we demonstrated was that if we lock down a country for a year or more, stop a very large number of people earning their livings or livelihoods at all, and close down a large number of companies for the duration and maybe for longer, it is an extremely costly process. Of course, we needed to offset that to prevent a complete collapse in the economy and to sustain some lifestyles for those who otherwise would have no income. So we as a nation have this burden of extra expenditure, which we are now having to tackle by tax levels that are higher than we like.
We are at this very important point where the higher taxes are all in place—some of them are doing their job, and some of them will disappoint because higher tax rates do not always deliver the extra revenue that Treasury and OBR planners seem to think they will—and the Government are rightly saying, from the autumn statement through this Budget and on to future fiscal events, as they are now called, that we want to get back to getting the level of taxation and the burden of the rates down. It does not mean that we want to reduce the amount of taxation—indeed, the Government, understandably, want to collect a lot more taxation, as do the Opposition—but the fundamental policy debate is about how best to do that, and it is surely right that we are going to have a more prosperous economy and more public expenditure can be afforded if we have tax levels that promote growth, particularly if we reduce the taxation that is otherwise a big burden on work, on enterprise and innovation, and on small companies and the self-employed.
I am delighted that the self-employed have been included in the national insurance cuts in both the autumn statement and this Budget, but I still think the Government need to reform or push back the changes they made to IR35. We have lost 800,000 self-employed over the covid period. Some of that is because of the damage the covid lockdown has done, but some of it is deliberate tax policy in telling people that they cannot be self-employed, or so undermining the credibility of their status as self-employed in the eyes of others that they do not get the contracts they used to get from businesses that are nervous about the tax issue.
I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to find time to look again at the second part of the self-employment package. I welcome the national insurance part, but I think we need to look at IR35, because we need that extra capacity. It would be good to get back some or all of those 800,000, and to add many new ones—younger ones—to that crucial army, because I am sure all Members in the House, being honest, would agree that the self-employed make such a valuable contribution in our constituencies.
Priti Patel
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that over the decades we have seen such a fall or drop-off in individuals starting their own business, younger people in particular, because of these concerns about the tax burden, how regulated it is and how difficult it is? By dealing with the whole long-standing issue of IR35, we could open up a new marketplace and encourage a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business leaders to come in and really help to grow the economy.
John Redwood
I largely agree with my right hon. Friend, but if we look at the numbers, I think the fall-off was from 2020 to 2024. Prior to that, with good Conservative policies and lower taxes, we were growing the self-employed army very noticeably, and it was making a very important contribution to general growth and the way all our local communities are serviced. It is so often self-employed people who allow us to make personal contact in a way that large companies do not seem to want any more. They are the people who turn up in the evening or at the weekend, if necessary, to get work done, and they are the people who wrestle with the increasingly impossible streets created by Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, which make it more difficult for them to get their vans around.
Clive Lewis
Does the right hon. Member not understand that perhaps the other reason for the decline in the self-employed and small and medium-sized enterprises is the growth of large businesses or large corporations that push them out of the marketplace and that monopolise and dominate? That is a big part of it, and it is a massive part of how our economy has developed over the last 30 or 40 years.
John Redwood
No, I do not think that is the main point. I think the two main points are the ones I have made—the covid lockdown and the tax regime affecting the ability to set oneself up. I will meet the hon. Member a little of the way, because I do think that the 2021 reforms in particular put companies off dealing with the self-employed, and the self-employed often need business from other companies, as well as directly from the public, and that has been a problem. If he and his party are seriously interested, they should look at the 2017 and 2021 reforms, which I think they supported, to understand how they have backfired. That is a good example of the OBR and the Treasury thinking that they can get more money out of the self-employed by forcing more of them to be employed but ending up with a far less successful economy with far fewer people working.
Richard Fuller
It is an absolute pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend. I want to reinforce his point about IR35 so that our colleagues on the Government Front Bench are clear about how important this is. He talked about how Labour in the past supported those measures, but does he share my concern that perhaps Labour has now recognised that those changes to IR35 have backfired and that it would be disastrous for the Conservative party to go into the next election not having made those changes while the Labour party is offering to do so?
John Redwood
I will not join my hon. Friend in suggesting that it could be disastrous to go into the election—I hope that, when we get to the election, it will be looking rather better. But I do agree that it would be great to have sorted out the IR35 taxation mess before we get to the election—after all, there could still be many months of happy Conservative Government ahead if that is the Government’s wish—as that would be a much better outcome. Failing that, it would be good to put it in the manifesto, but the self-employed would be quite right to say to the Conservatives, “If you have now got to the point of putting it in the manifesto because you think it needs changing, why didn’t you just fix it?”
Anna Firth
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. He is talking about the self-employed, and in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea more than 98% of my businesses are small or medium-sized—in fact, the vast majority are micro. Does he, like me, welcome the raising of the VAT threshold in the Budget? Does he think that over time it would be welcome to continue moving that threshold, which is such a brake on the growth of small businesses? It is a brilliant thing that we have done, but could we take that further?
John Redwood
My first request of Chancellors in recent Budgets has been that there should be a sizeable increase in the VAT threshold. I opened the bidding at taking it up to £250,000, because I think we should want get on with these things, and we should want to allow the self-employed to take on their first one or two employees and get their business to a certain scale before this colossal bureaucratic burden comes down upon them. I have not yet persuaded my hon. Friends in the Treasury. I am pleased that Chancellors have moved from saying, “No, we don’t want to do that at all,” to saying, “It can now be done.” But if the Government are to do it, they should get on with it, mean it, and look as if it is going to make a real impact.
Five thousand pounds is not much. Lots of people get their business to around £75,000 to £80,000—I have met them in my constituency, as I am sure have most Members in theirs—and then they say, “I’ll have a month off,” or, “I’ll close the B&B for more of the off-season period,” or, “I won’t take on any more contracts, because I really don’t want all that hassle.” They will say, “I’m just a self-employed plumber”—or caterer or whatever—“and I’m good at what I do. I don’t want to become a VAT expert and I don’t want to have to spend a fortune on consultants to take me through this rigmarole of trying to keep the books straight on VAT.” I think we would benefit greatly from allowing that flexibility. The Bill helps, because it does reduce self-employed national insurance costs, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) said, it would be much greater if we dealt with the VAT threshold at the same time.
I would like to extend the conversation, which the Opposition clearly want to have and the Government need to respond to, about affordable and unaffordable tax cuts. First, I note that the Opposition dub all tax cuts—apart from the odd one they vote for—as unaffordable, whereas any amount of public spending is affordable. That is a strange asymmetry. The truth is that the Budget deficit is a combination of increased spending and reduced taxation, and one needs to look at both sides, which should be treated similarly.
The other thing that the Opposition must understand, from listening carefully to Ministers, is that getting rid of all national insurance employee contributions is just an idea; it is not a pledge and it is not a policy. It is clearly not baked into the next five years of figures. We have the Government’s five-year financial plan in the Budget, which sets out in general terms what the levels of tax revenue and overall spending will be—we await more detail for future years on spending from the public spending review in due course—and we know what the current feeling is on taxation, because we are just voting that through at the moment, based on the Budget. We know that future Budgets will make changes to taxes.
I am sure that Conservative Budgets will make reductions in taxes—assuming continuity of Conservative Government—but the Government are not promising to take off all this national insurance in one go, or indeed to make any particular change to national insurance next year or the year after. That is the right position to be in. However, given that there is plenty of time to think this through—it is not urgent policy—I urge my hon. Friends in the Treasury to set out more of the consideration than the arguments before coming up with a firm pledge or a timetable for implementing a tax cut that they want.
We do need to begin with the contributory principle, which is still the main feature of the national insurance fund as we have it today, relating almost entirely to the state retirement pension. The old contributory benefits for unemployment and sickness have been largely removed from the national insurance fund—there are only residual, small amounts left—and now come out of general taxation and are voted on in the normal way. The contributory fund is primarily for the pension, which is reflected in the fact that everyone in receipt of a state retirement pension—or in expectation of one when they get to the relevant age—will have their pension based on their contribution record.
It is also true that Parliament over the years has amended how one qualifies for those contribution records—in some circumstances one can be at home and qualify for deemed contribution, which is all good and fair—but it is still very much a contribution-based system. If we suddenly went away from such a system, we would need to answer the question: how do we settle eligibility for state pension? Many of my constituents would not think it a good idea if we invited in migrant workers in their 60s to do two or three years’ work here, having settled here quite legally, and then said, “You can have a full state pension.” They would feel that was not quite what people had in mind, because all previous generations have had to be here and work for many years to gain that entitlement. So there would be issues of fairness.
If the Government’s proposition is only that they would quite like to get rid of all employee contributions, I suppose we could keep the contributory principle by proxy, because people would have an employer contribution record, which I guess modern computers could divulge in a form that made a proxy for the eligibility of that person for a pension. However, it would still leave a hole in the national insurance accounts, because with just employer revenue we would have less national insurance revenue coming in than pension going out, so there would need to be technical adjustments or the abolition of the fund and some other reassurance mechanism that people would get their entitlements for the state pension, however those new entitlements were calculated.
This is a complicated area. I have been around this policy area on several occasions in the past for various leaders, Chancellors and shadow Chancellors, and I have always concluded that it would not be a good idea to try to merge the whole of the national insurance taxation system with the whole of the income tax system. I still think there is some merit in keeping the contributory principle. It now mainly relates to the pension, which is probably what one settles for, given how much other benefits have gone up and how one could not put all that extra burden on additional national insurance contributions.
I therefore urge the Government to ask themselves questions about the timetable, affordability, wisdom and, above all, what they wish to do with the national insurance system as a whole, the contributory principle—which still means a lot, particularly to older users of the system—and what a more modern system might look like. That is Green Paper and policy discussion territory, and it is invited as part of this debate because the Opposition have tabled amendments to try to tease some of these matters out. We cannot settle this today, however; we need a lot of documentation and research to update some of the numbers and complexities, which I remember poring over in the past, so we can see how this might work.
So, it is good news that we are getting a tax cut, and good news that we can have some more tax cuts to come, but I ask the Government please not only to think about cutting national insurance, on which they have done a big and a good job, but to think about some of the other taxes, such as the VAT threshold and IR35, and such as taxes on energy where we are still completely uncompetitive in this country because energy taxation is so high, relative to China and the United States of America, let alone relative to our European competitors—they tend to have higher energy prices but we are still uncompetitive against them.
So we need to look at all of that, and when we are looking at future Budgets we need to work away at finding more headroom. I am very pleased that this national insurance cut is effectively allowed under Office for Budget Responsibility rules because the Government have seized the initiative on the productivity decline, which has been very sizeable over the covid period in the public services, and the Government are putting back around £20 billion of lost productivity in future years. That is a modest target given the scale of the decline, and it is another reason why the public finances have been thrown into disarray by covid: we did not merely have all the extra costs during the covid period, but we now have ongoing considerable extra cost to run our public services because we cannot even get them back up to the levels of productivity they had hit in 2019 before the covid crisis. We need to look at other ways of finding headroom. Productivity is a good mine for finding headroom so we can improve the quality and cut the cost of what we deliver in the public sector.
I still think the Bank of England should be stopped from selling its colossal bond portfolio at huge losses and sending the bill to the taxpayer. That is unsupportable and the fact that taxpayers and the Treasury have had to find £34 billion year to date to cover the whole range of Bank of England losses, which include capital losses on the bonds, is a sign of how out of control this is. We need to stop that kind of thing. It would also be very helpful in getting us out of this technical recession, because the monetary policy has shifted from being massively too expansionary and inflationary, as it was during the covid period, when some of us warned about the way the Bank carried on for too long with printing money and buying bonds. I was very happy with the first tranches because it was essential to offset, but the last tranche was over the top. The Bank has now lurched to being too tough and has therefore created a technical recession that we need not have had, and if it stopped quantitative tightening bond sales, that would start to ease the markets up a bit more and allow us to grow a bit more rapidly and therefore generate more tax revenue.
So I hope there is some food for thought here for the Government when they look at their progress so far. The national insurance cuts are good, but they should study the overall reform rather more carefully and think it through and not make it the only kind of tax cuts in the future. There are other tax cuts now that are more urgent and that would grow the economy more quickly, and they would be targeted rather more on enabling more people to work for themselves and more small businesses to grow, and on us having more capacity, particularly in high energy using areas.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is always good to speak after the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), because he genuinely makes the idea of deepening economic inequality sound so plausible and convincing. If I could do the same from these Benches for the idea of deepening economic equality, I would feel that I had achieved something. He does it so well. When listening to our opponents on the Benches opposite, such as the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), it is as interesting to think about what they do not say as what they do say, and one thing they always seem reluctant to talk about is taxing wealth. I imagine that I will be a lone voice in this debate, but I intend to make the point none the less that there is a route by which we can have public services that actually work and a fairer economic system, and it requires an increase in the burden on those with the most, not those with the least.
The Bill is not just another arbitrary, reckless and misguided act by this Government; rather, it comes from a long and distinguished line of such Bills stretching back to the 1970s, although their pedigree is far older. This Bill is integral to an economic creed that we have heard much about today, which preaches low tax and small privatised public services, and a belief that inequality is good because it drives competition—competition for jobs and for resources. The creed says that we need not worry about the losers, because we will have something called “trickle-down”, whereby the riches of the few flow down for the many to enjoy.
The only problem is that 60 years later, we are still waiting at the bottom and it has not come down to us yet. Perhaps the Minister can tell us—the millions waiting for that trickle-down who are now routinely using food banks and worrying about how they will pay the next bill—when that trickle-down will arrive. This Bill is the culmination of 60 years of tax cuts, outsourcing, privatisation, impoverishment, profiteering, corruption and greed; 60 years that have left this country more divided than ever, susceptible to climate threats and deeply unequal in everything from income to life expectancy.
What we need is a Government and a legislative programme that will reverse that decline and invest in infrastructure, healthcare, jobs and, yes, people. What we have instead is this Bill making a national insurance tax cut that will, according to Tax Justice UK, see the average worker benefit by—wait for it—£8 a week. It is small beer compared with the £3,000 they have lost to inflation in the last couple of years.
Of course, in keeping with the creed of those on the Government Benches, the better off people are, the more this tax cut will pay out to them. For those on £20,000 a year or so, the cut is worth about £150 a year; for those on £50,000 and above, it is worth almost £750. But whether it is a tax cut of £150 or £750, this Bill does nothing to rebuild our shattered public services, nothing to bring down NHS waiting times, nothing to adapt this country to the approaching climate crisis, and nothing to fix our broken adult social care system. As the Resolution Foundation noted, public sector investment spending—a key driver of growth—is set to fall by 31% as a share of GDP between 2024 and 2029. That is a real-terms cut equivalent to £17 billion.
What does that mean for my constituency? What does that mean for people in my community? Norfolk and Waveney has the highest rate of malnutrition in the United Kingdom. A little while ago, I went to a school in West Earlham in my constituency and spoke to the headteacher about a national article that said it was routine, after 13 years of this Government, for children to have parents who use food banks and to turn up to school with bowlegs. I said to her, “When you’re teaching these children, how do you know that they’re hungry?” She said, “It’s quite clear. They eat the sand in the sandpit.” Those are the signs that teachers look for to know that children are genuinely hungry.
Norfolk and Suffolk have the worst mental health services in the country. Norfolk and Waveney is among the top five dental deserts in England. Ambulance delays have been going on for over a decade with little sign of improvement. This national insurance cut will do nothing for those services. On the day of the Budget, I spoke to the BBC. The interviewer, Andrew Sinclair, said to me, “Clive, there’s a cost of living crisis, and you want more money in the pockets of your constituents.” I said, “Yes Andrew, I do, but I also want functional public services.”
With those few hundred extra pounds each year in someone’s pocket—£8 a week—they will not be able to pay for a private surgeon for their hip operation that they are waiting for. They will not be able to pay for a private dentist to extract their teeth, do dental surgery or work on their teeth. They will not be able to buy a classroom for their child, who is sitting in one with rotting concrete. That will not help them. The Budget, and this Bill, will not help my constituents who are waiting for mental health services. I heard this week at a meeting that I organised with my Conservative colleagues about our failing mental health care system that children have killed themselves because they cannot see a psychiatrist or psychologist. The Bill will do nothing for them.
Who will pay for those services? There is an answer. We are one of the most unequal economies in the western world when it comes to wealth. Let us look at wealth. In this country, those with the lowest incomes are likely to have a combined tax rate on income and wealth of approximately 44% per annum. Meanwhile, those in the highest decile of earners are likely to pay no more than 21.5% per annum on their combined income and wealth. The answer is clear. We can raise billions to pay for the public services we need without raising tax on the lowest paid or middle earners, and without increasing the income tax burden, by putting a little more tax on those with the greatest wealth and the broadest shoulders—those who should pay their way and contribute to our public services, which are so badly needed. This Bill does none of that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, as I did the previous one that reduced national insurance contributions. As a starting point, we must recognise that a lot of the lobbying about our economy tends to come from the biggest organisations with the deepest pockets. Around 70% of people employed in this country work in an enterprise with fewer than five staff. Those businesses do not necessarily have a big public affairs department or a collective sector or trade body to represent them, but they will benefit enormously and directly in their pockets from the decisions that we take this afternoon.
It concerns me a little to hear those on the Opposition Benches who scorn the value of the money that the Bill puts back into people’s pockets, because £8 a week might not seem like a huge amount—in the context of an MP’s salary, perhaps it is not—but particularly for lower income households, that £8 a week accumulated over the period of a year is a valuable contribution towards a better standard of living. It is more money to spend on the rising costs that households face—car insurance and other bills—or to put towards a family holiday, a better Christmas or more treats for the children. We should recognise that all of that contributes to a higher standard of living for people in this country. A lot of today’s debate has been party political in tone, perhaps regrettably, given how empty the Opposition Benches are.
I was elected to public office for the first time in 1998—a year after the last Labour Government took office. Many of us will recall that that Government were elected on a pledge that they would stick to the spending plans put in place by the outgoing Conservative Government in 1997 for their first three years in office. Thereafter, they spent, in broad terms, 10% more taxpayers’ money every single year than they raised in taxation revenue. When the country faced a significant financial crash in the late 2000s, there was already a huge national debt as a result of the Labour party’s failure ever to meet their committed expenditure through tax rises, productivity growth or any other method.
For me as a local authority councillor, that meant a Labour Government who said, “We are introducing entitlements to higher standards of care and an expectation that you will fund it through introducing charges for the most vulnerable people.” That Labour Government required every single local authority to make massive efficiency savings every year in every other part of public services to balance the budget. Given some of the pledges that Labour made in the Budget debate, whether on the environment, VAT on school fees or windfall taxes, if there is to be a change of Government, we will see yet another period of a Labour Chancellor saying, “We failed to raise this money in tax, we have not generated the income, so we are going to borrow, borrow and borrow, and the national debt will continue to rise.”
The taxable capacity of our economy and the economies of every country in the western world is an important consideration for us. Every major economy has been affected by covid and Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. We must be careful about how we allocate taxpayers’ money to ensure that we are contributing to growth and focusing on the things that make the biggest difference to our constituents’ standard of living.
The Treasury team has been lobbied a great deal on issues from inheritance tax to stamp duty, higher rate tax and additional rate tax. I was pleased to see in the Budget that measures have been taken or work has begun on things like reducing the cliff edges that affect people, such as in child benefit. However, we need to recognise that around 11% of taxpayers in the UK currently pay higher rate tax, whereas the national insurance cut benefits, as my hon. Friend the Minister said at the Dispatch box, around 29 million working people—the vast majority of people in this country.
According to the Barclays insights report for my constituency, which I received recently, as I think did every other right hon. and hon. Member, the biggest increase in discretionary expenditure has been on lower-income working households. That suggests that the measures taken by the Government to date are beginning to feed through.
Let me turn briefly to a number of points that have been raised about the use of national insurance contributions. We heard the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), asserting very clearly at the Dispatch Box in Prime Minister’s questions earlier that a reduction of national insurance meant a cut in the budget for the NHS. It is worth reflecting on the Government Actuary’s quinquennial review, which sets out in a lot of detail how national insurance contributions are used, some of their history and how they came to be that way.
When national insurance was introduced in 1911, it was intended to represent—in a physical sense, with an actual stamp on a card—a direct contribution towards someone’s benefits and pension. It evolved, in particular with the 1948 reforms, into the shape we see today. But there is no direct hypothecation between the vast majority of national insurance contributions and any part of public services. In fact, around 94% of the national insurance fund is spent directly on funding retirement pensions. It is a subset of other categories of national insurance contributions that represent the biggest single transfer from NICs paid by our constituents into the national health service.
As I learned in my time engaging with a whole variety of different bits of government, such as the teachers’ pension scheme, people pay in, it goes into a pool of Government funding and decisions are then made by the Treasury on how to distribute that. In the case of the national insurance fund, we know that one of the issues the Budget begins to deal with really effectively is the recognition of a 17% statutory maximum on any Treasury contribution to cover shortfalls in that expenditure. Yet by the middle of this century, as a result of our changing demographics, we know that those shortfalls will become quite significant.
The steps made through such measures as the removal of a lifetime limit on pension saving and the uprating of auto-enrolment are examples of a Government not just thinking a couple of years ahead with an election in mind, but thinking 30 years and 40 years ahead to ensure that we have a sound financial basis for the biggest single item of Government expenditure in the middle of this century, when all those bills will be coming home to roost. That is evidence of a responsible and Conservative approach: looking at how we can make decisions within our taxable capacity that reflect a proper understanding of what the data tell us about the long-term position. That supports things like an increased savings rate—again, all the data we are getting demonstrates that our constituents are beginning to take that seriously—with a view to ensuring long-term stability.
On that note, I conclude by saying that the Treasury and the Government have taken exactly the right decision. They recognise that the benefits provided to pensioner households in particular over the past 14 years mean that they are now much, much wealthier, relatively speaking, than they used to be, supported by the triple lock. They now need to acknowledge that working people, who have borne a significant burden because of covid and the war in Ukraine, need extra money in their pockets. We must set that against the backdrop of an economy where, on average, 800 jobs have been created for every single day that the Conservatives have in office since 2010, where the youth unemployment rate has halved since the last Labour Government, and where foreign investment is supporting the creation of jobs and investment in productivity, which gives us cause to be optimistic and positive that this is genuinely a Budget for a better future.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support measures to reduce the tax burden on hard-hit households during the cost of living crisis, but the Bill is yet another deception from the Conservative Government. Everyone can see what this alleged tax cut really is: a badly executed swindle from this Chancellor in his desperate attempt to convince people he is cutting taxes. Yet the British people will not be fooled. It is clear that, despite his claims to the contrary, the Chancellor is continuing to stealth-tax millions of hard-working families and pensioners through the freeze on national insurance and income tax thresholds, which is subjecting them to the highest tax burden since the second world war.
Since last April, a typical household has already paid almost £1,500 extra because of the Chancellor’s stealth tax hit, while enduring higher mortgage or rental costs, sky-rocketing energy bills, and soaring food prices at the till—all as a result of decisions made by this Conservative Government. Despite all that, the Chancellor is still trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Even after the measures proposed in the Bill today are enacted, that same typical household will be paying an additional £366 next year, because the Chancellor has frozen their tax-free personal allowance. Worse still will be the hit to pensioners, who will see almost half the gains they receive from the basic state pension over the next four years wiped out by these Conservative stealth taxes. That is an £8 billion pensioner penalty, all as a result of this Conservative Chancellor effectively taking a bolt cutter to the triple lock. It is therefore clear that these deceptive Conservative claims to be cutting taxes simply are not worth the paper they are written on.
In his Budget last week the Chancellor could have given real support to hard-hit households suffering through the cost of living crisis, but instead he delivered yet more of the same from this out-of-touch and out-of-ideas Conservative party. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to give valuable support to those who are struggling to make ends meet, including a mortgage protection fund paid for by a reversal of the Conservative tax cuts for the big banks so that struggling families do not lose their homes, support for renters through the banning of no-fault evictions and the introduction of longer standard tenancies, and further help for all households with their energy bills through a doubling of the warm home discount.
Those steps would have made a real difference to families struggling in the middle of a Conservative recession. The Chancellor sat on his hands, opting instead for a last-ditch attempt to cling to power; but across the country, people will not be fooled. That is why I tabled new clause 2, which I will speak about in more detail in Committee, and to which I hope Members on both sides of the House will lend their support. The new clause, if accepted, would lay bare this Conservative Government’s stealth tax deception by shining a light on the millions of people who will be dragged into paying national insurance as a result of the freeze on tax thresholds.
The Liberal Democrats support measures to ease the tax burden on hard-working families during the cost of living crisis, but we will not be supporting this deceptive Conservative legislation today. For too long the Chancellor has claimed to be cutting taxes, seemingly giving with one hand while taking more with the other. That is why voters throughout the country are sick and tired of this out-of-touch Conservative Government and are switching to the Liberal Democrats. In seats all over the country, it is clear that the choice at the next election will be between an out-of-touch Conservative MP and a hard-working Liberal Democrat one.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I must confess that I have not spoken in many Budget-related debates in the House, partly because I am well aware of the expertise of many other Members. It is a matter of some interest and pleasure for me to listen to the likes of my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Wokingham (John Redwood) as they explain the consequences of, and the reasoning behind, measures such as this, and for that I am grateful. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, for showing up. As my right hon. Friend for Witham said, it is good to have a debate about these issues and it is important that we do so, but that is difficult when the Labour Benches stand empty before us.
In the words of my office manager, Barbara—who will enjoy the reference—I am a bear of little brain, and I therefore think of Budgets in simple terms. There is money coming in and there is money that must go out, and hopefully there is a surplus between the two sums. My right hon. Friends the Members for Witham and for Wokingham have already covered issues such as growth and productivity so well that I will not deal with them now, but the points that they made bring me to my own first point, which is that Budgets are about choices. Much as Opposition Members want to make out that this is a single-issue debate that is all about spending, there are choices involved in how a Government must spend any money that they have, or must borrow in order to spend.
The first of those choices is “Do we spend on public services?”, and the Chancellor has said, very clearly, “We do.” An extra £150 billion is being spent on public services, and that is in the context of a health budget of about £176 billion a year and a pensions budget of £124 billion. It is not an insignificant amount. It is not an afterthought. It is not a rounding-up error that slipped past the accountants’ eyes in the preparation of the Budget. It is a serious commitment to public services.
At this point, I must refer to my own constituency and the Chancellor’s inclusion of cultural projects of national significance, with £10 million for Venue Cymru in Aberconwy. We are exceedingly grateful for that, and I know that the council was delighted and surprised, but I did work hard to make the case for it with the Chancellor. As he pointed out, culture is an investment with a real economic return, and that is something that the students at Ysgol John Bright in my constituency understood. Just last week I was talking to the cast of its production of “Chicago”, and Lily, Arron, Isobel and others said how much they appreciated the chance to take part in productions not just in the school hall but in the local theatre. They saw the value of an investment in that theatre enabling future generations to have the same experience.
That brings me to my second point about how we choose to spend our money. We can invest it, as the Chancellor has demonstrated—for example, in his reference to a productivity programme. I think he set aside £140 million or £150 million for productivity within the NHS. No one can describe this as a short-termist Budget, or one that is only thinking about some event that may happen later this year—I cannot imagine what. This is a really forward-looking Budget.
The third thing that a Chancellor can do with a Budget is repay debt, which I feel very strongly about. The argument was made by the hon. Member for Norwich South that we can pay more and more into public services. Usually, the argument is that we can pay a penny here or a penny there, which never sounds like much, but the debt that builds up when we have to borrow to make payments is considerable. Let us not forget that the narrative of “just a penny more” or “just give us more money and we’ll get it done” was tested to destruction in 2010. By the time we got to 2010, what was the legacy? A note saying, “There’s no money left.” I did not write the note; it was a Member now on the Opposition Benches—then a Minister, no less. We have to address the idea that we should simply throw more money into public services. We have a duty to members of the public to change the narrative of, “This party is bad because it doesn’t spend; that party is good because it does spend.” It is not the answer, which is why we have a moral duty—never mind an economic and financial one—to properly make the case for reform. Again, I refer back to the Chancellor’s decision to put £140 million or £150 million into a productivity boost for the NHS.
Debt levels are increasing—that is for sure. Health and pensions will receive £176.2 billion and £124.3 billion respectively this year. The third biggest public sector spend this year will not be on policing, defence—that is a subject for another debate—education or universal credit, but on the interest on debt repayments. I am sorry to pick on the hon. Member for Norwich South, and even sorrier that he is not in his place to hear this, but to keep reducing everything to the number of nurses we might be able to recruit, or to the number of hospitals we might be able to build, is an irresponsible way of looking at public services. The repayment that we make on debt is forecast to be £94 billion this year. In simple maths, that is the equivalent of building two new primary schools every single hour of every single day this year. If we want to reduce stuff to such a level, let us have that conversation, because our debt repayments are costing us two new primary schools, at £5 million each, every hour—24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Maybe I have got the price slightly wrong, but we can work out the numbers
We know that debt levels increased under the last Labour Government. I will not be drawn into that discussion—much as I would like to—because this debate is about national insurance, but I will make the point that debt has increased. How have the Conservative Government done that over the last 14 years? They have spent money on the things that this country has needed. Apart from empty coffers, we inherited a global financial crisis. We introduced a programme of austerity, and we had to work that through with three programmes of quantitative easing, worth about £350 billion. We were then unexpectedly hit by a pandemic, for which our expenditure was about £410 billion—equivalent to about £6,000 per head of population. That costs money to service, and we are now paying it back.
None of us knew that the pandemic was coming. None of us knew that a war was coming in the east of Europe. None of us knew that an energy crisis was coming. None of us knew that there was going to be inflation across the economy. None of us knew these things, but this Government responded and we wrote the cheques. When the energy crisis came up, the Government spent £67 billion on supporting businesses and members of the public. During the covid crisis, £140 billion of that £410 billion went on shielding business so that when we came out, the economy bounced straight back to where it had been. This is an understanding of how the economy works and of how public finance works. It is distinctively Conservative that this is so, and we have shown this.
There is a fourth thing we can do with that spend. If we are not spending it on public services, investing it or drawing down debt, we can choose to cut taxes, and that is where we have come to. It was on the streets of Llandudno that I encountered the first person to ask me, “Who is going to pay for all of this?” It was during the covid pandemic, on the King’s Drive in Llandudno, where a resident and I were having a chat across his garden wall—suitably spaced at the time, of course. The area has it challenges, and it might be expected that people there would be looking for help from the Government, and indeed they did, but that gentleman, who had lived on that street for six decades, was the first person to look me in the eye and say, “Someone is going to have to pay for all this.”
That is an important point. We talk about being honest, and I was sorry to hear some of the comments from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about being honest and not pulling the wool over people’s eyes. Let us start by saying, “This costs, and someone has to pay for it. Someone has to be responsible for looking at how this is paid for.” The choices we make to spend are matched by the choices we make on how we spend and where the money goes.
This Government have chosen to make a cut in national insurance, and I fully support that. I would say that 2% is a distinctively conservative amount, in a distinctively Conservative approach to tax cutting. It matters; it is making a difference. We hear that for someone on the UK average salary of £34,500, that will be worth about £900, taking the two cuts of 2% together. A 4% cut will be worth about £900. In my constituency the average salary is considerably less; it is about £28,000. Iusb know that some who are listening to this will doubt that, but that is the figure. To somebody on £28,000, that 4% cut will be worth about £600, and that makes a difference. That £50 a month will make a difference.
That brings me to my first comment about the national insurance cut, which is that it is targeted. This is deliberately intended to make a difference. This is not gesture politics. This is not unfunded. This is not careless. This is not something that is done casually or without thought or regard. It is targeted, and 27 million people are better off. There has been talk of why pensioners have not been included, but pensioners have benefited from the triple lock. There has also been talk that the better-off receive more of a cut. The nature of tax is the more you receive, the more you pay. That was exactly the argument made by the hon. Member for Norwich South, and I might characterise it as “soak the rich”, yet that somehow seems to be an argument against providing a tax cut. That is nonsense and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of finance that exists on the Opposition Benches.
This measure is targeted because it is aimed at those who are in work. It is distinctively Conservative to encourage and reward those in work and to say to them, “At the end of this month you will have more left over in your pay cheque than you did before. Why? Because the Government have made that decision to impact your pay cheque so that you can take home more.” If we are going to talk about comparisons, we should go back to 2010 and say that over these 14 years the attitude to work and the understanding of the importance of work are reflected in the fact that, on average, 800 new jobs a day have been created under this Conservative Government. It is a distinctively Conservative thing to target finance intelligently and to do it to encourage people into work and encourage them in that work.
My second point is that it is the second cut in a row, and dare I say it—oh, there is no one on the Opposition Benches to listen to this—there is a plan to reduce the tax burden. We have established that there was a need for the Government to make payments to support people and businesses through the pandemic, the energy crisis and inflation, but we are now cutting the rates to encourage work, and it is a plan. It is distinctively Conservative to have a plan, and 4p off the tax on my wages and their wages is a big cut by any estimation.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park talked about the Chancellor taking a bolt cutter to the triple lock, and I remind her that pensions are structured in such a way that people do not pay tax when they pay in, so that the sum builds up and they benefit from the interest it accrues—it grows faster over time. The other side is that they pay some tax when they take their pension. The pension was never intended to be tax free, and there has always been an expectation that there will be some payment to be made. That is not taking a bolt cutter to the triple lock.
It was this Chancellor who committed to the triple lock, and that commitment, depending on the estimate, has cost the Government £10 billion. There are other ways to calculate the pension, such as having a double lock, measuring it against the consumer prices index or measuring it against earnings, but saying that, no, the triple lock stands has cost the Government £10 billion more, which is £10 billion in pensioners’ pockets. Let nobody say that this Government do not care about pensioners or the elderly—and I say that as an MP representing a constituency where 27% of my constituents are over the age of 65. Again, we all have to make a payment, and this is about talking straight.
We may have forgotten the capital reliefs—the full expensing—announced in the last autumn statement. Again, that has a cost, but it is a real benefit to business. That is £50 billion over five year. There might be questions about that estimate, but it is another big commitment, this time not to pensioners but to business. To come back to my point about a plan, we have made a commitment to pensioners—an expensive one, but the right one—and we have made a commitment to business to encourage growth, so it makes sense that in this Budget we have made a commitment to workers. Again, this sounds like a plan; it sounds to me like there is an intentionality that I simply do not see or hear from Opposition Members.
My third point is that I am very happy with the aspiration to reduce further or eliminate national insurance. It is distinctively Conservative to want to reduce tax further, and it is distinctively Conservative to make tax simpler. This is perhaps not the time to debate other tax methods or flat taxes, but I see no problem with suggesting our direction of travel. What I find remarkable is that the Opposition’s immediate reaction is to say, “Oh, that’s unfunded.” At some point in the management of the public finances, we have to balance where the money comes from with where it is going. It is completely reasonable to say that we have an aspiration to reduce taxes. If it is a case of eliminating national insurance, so be it.
I will bring my remarks to a close—[Interruption.] I can hear the chuntering from the small number of Opposition Members present, and I thank the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) for joining her Front-Bench colleagues. The doctor says that sometimes medicine does not taste so good, and I have a feeling that some of the things I am talking about do not taste good to those on the other side of this House, because this is medicine; I am talking about a responsible approach to public finance, telling the truth, and dealing with people as adults by saying, “Money has been spent and now money is having to be paid back.”
The key point is that we are still managing to bring cuts to the tax paid by workers. As I said, we have a trajectory on that: we have given money to pensioners—those who need it; we have given money to businesses, through capital relief and full expensing; and now we are doing this for workers. This is distinctively Conservative because of the intentionality, the plan and the focus on those who need it, the businesses that create growth and wealth, and the workers we wish to incentivise with it. We understand that the Opposition will vote for these cuts, but they cannot muster any enthusiasm for them—they certainly cannot muster any debate about them. We know that Opposition Members are here somewhere, because, presumably, they will all turn up to vote in a minute, but they are not on the Benches now. The question is: what is the Labour plan for tax?
David Simmonds
I am very much enjoying what my hon. Friend has to say to the House about this Budget. He will have heard the saying many times in the local government world that, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”. One Opposition party has a strategy of trying to pretend it has no funding commitments but it has a deeply ingrained culture of tax and spend, whereas we have a party of government whose culture and strategy is very much about a long-term trajectory of tax cuts and living within our means. Does he agree that it is the culture in the Government of living within our means that will out after this election?
Robin Millar
My hon. Friend makes a good point, in that, first, culture does eat strategy. We can strip away all the words about this but his point about cutting our cloth and living within our means describes exactly what we have seen happening. I have tried to set out, albeit perhaps rather clumsily—I ask Members to forgive me if that is so—that there is a 10-year story here of inheriting no money, and running into a pandemic that nobody expected, a war that no one planned, an energy crisis and global inflation. Yet this Government turn up with a Budget that says to the worker, “4p less in the pound is what you are having to pay.”. That is remarkable.
We might argue about the hows, whys and wherefores, but we have to be honest about the fact that the headwinds we have encountered as a nation over the past decade were not expected. Given that we started from a point of having no money—to use the phrase on the note left by the Labour Minister—it is extraordinary that we are here today debating another 2p off tax. It is even more extraordinary to me that the Opposition have not got the bottle to turn up for a debate as important as this.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I have to follow the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). I was listening carefully and trying to pick out something useful from his speech, and I did find a line: someone is going to have to pay. SNP Members know that public services are going to have to pay for this measure, which is why we tabled our reasoned amendment; there is going to be a crushing effect on them.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about debt levels, but, unfortunately, like the Labour and Tory parties, he did not talk about debt levels accruing in households because of the cost of living crisis. They never mention people in their houses who are struggling through the situation they are faced with at the moment. That is for something else, but those are the effects on people in real life while we are just talking around the subject. I think I heard the Labour Front Bencher say that in this Budget for every £5 people get back, they will lose £10. [Interruption.] That is not being disagreed with, so I believe it is correct, and yet Labour will still back this Bill; Labour Members will not vote against it today. This is another measure on that journey to take money out of people’s pockets.
It was good to hear the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) speaking about the issues, including the reasons why we have brought forward our reasoned amendment. He talked about the long “economic creed” of this type of Bill that privatises public services. I enjoyed his speech and agreed with it. I hope he will persuade his colleagues and try to change their minds, so that they come back and vote against the Bill. I hope he will join us in the Lobby as well—it is a shame he is not in his place to hear that just now.
This is a Parliament of flatlining growth and falling living standards. The Labour party keeps asking where the money is coming from, yet it is afraid to ask that question about the measures set out in this Bill because it does not want to tackle the subject. When the Institute for Fiscal Studies calls out both the Government and the Labour party for “a conspiracy of silence” over the effects of the Chancellor’s Budget, including these measures, it is not hard to drill down to see why the Bill should be opposed.
Drew Hendry
Go on. The hon. Gentleman has had 20 minutes, but I will give him another go.
Robin Millar
The hon. Gentleman is being generous; I appreciate that he has a speech to give. The fact is that somebody on the national living wage, or the minimum wage as it was in 2010, is now, in 2024, 35% better off in real terms. That is not a trajectory of decline: somebody on the bottom rung of society, in terms of earnings, is better off.
Drew Hendry
I thought the hon. Gentleman had got through all that stuff in his speech. I will let him know just now that, because of this measure, anybody earning up to £19,000 per annum will still be worse off, or at least no better off, because of frozen thresholds under the control of his Government. The biggest gainers are those earning over £50,000 per annum. As a result of the changes and frozen thresholds, someone working full time and earning the minimum wage will see a net tax increase of more than £200, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Resolution Foundation said that there will be a 0.9% fall in real terms in household disposable income between 2019 and 2025.
The Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out again this week that the Government make their own fiscal rules. They decide what they are going to do and make decisions that they take forward. There is not some magic envelope that they have to work within, where they have no flexibility and are unable to move outside that envelope or do anything different. They can make choices, but the choices they are making are bad ones. Austerity is a choice that this Government have made time and again, with the same outcome: 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019—failure, failure, failure and failure. If that is not enough, throw a disastrous Brexit and a toxic mini-Budget into the mix and see what happens.
The measures in the Bill are a grubby election gimmick that makes things much worse for everyone. People are struggling. They are struggling with food prices, which have been boosted by Brexit to over 25% more than they were a couple of years ago. Millions of people are paying hundreds of pounds more on mortgages. Opening letters, emails and apps shows the sharp interest they are paying for energy costs. The measures, along with the lack of investment in public services, leaves public service cuts beyond reasonable imagination.
It is not just me saying that. The Institute for Government has said:
“The reality is that these spending plans will be impossible to deliver”,
as have other institutes. The Resolution Foundation says they are “fiscal fiction”. Let us think about the impact of that. Where is the Labour party on that subject? Where is the so-called “party of labour” on the subject? Missing in action when its Members should be here. What is the point?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Labour party in Scotland has made the point that change is coming, but can my hon. Friend explain to me, other than changing the colour of the rosette over No. 10 Downing Street, what that change actually is? Given that Labour Members are not voting against this Budget and they have agreed with the Government on Gaza and on multiple other policy areas, what is the point of Labour?
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That was underlined the other day when the Labour leader was interviewed by Sophy Ridge, and he was not willing to say what Labour would do differently. It was also underlined by the campaign co-ordinator, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who would not disagree with any part of the Tories’ horrible Budget. What is the point of Labour?
What is the point in this Government continuing along this disastrous path that they have put in place? They say that they want to increase productivity in the UK, but their productivity aims are destined to be fatally undermined by inevitable public sector industrial action, which workers will be right to take. They will also then have to face the policy panics that will follow. No, sorry, the Conservatives will not be in Government. It will be Labour that will have to face those policy panics and the U-turns that will inevitably have to be made.
This Bill has been designed by losers. It will mean that many more people will be losing what they value: decent public services. It is not only, as the Chancellor said, Scottish oil and gas that are losing out. Other losers include: action on climate change, the just transition and, yes, let us not forget Labour abandoning its £28 billion a year promise to invest in the green economy. That has turned to dust as well.
What we needed in the Budget were measures to help people with food, with mortgages, with rent and with energy costs. We needed public services protected, and proper investment in the NHS. This is a desperately shoddy Bill that plunges our public sector into a desperate and dark future that helps few and hurts many. The nations of the UK needed better, and Scotland deserves to be out of this Westminster austerity nightmare.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Being the last to speak in these debates has become a bit of a habit—and with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I rise to speak very much in favour of this Bill. It delivers a 2% cut in national insurance, which will be hugely welcomed by thousands of households in my constituency, and indeed across the country. For someone on the average wage, this change, combined with the 2% cut that we introduced in January, will mean a £900 cut, which, for a household with two people earning, is £1,800 a year. Although that is not life-changing money, for many working households across this country, that £150 a month will make a significant difference in easing the pressures on their household budgets and the challenges they currently face.
We must acknowledge that we can make this cut only because of the difficult decisions that we have consistently made over many years to be responsible in our handling of the public finances. I know I said that yesterday, but it needs to be continually repeated. This is against a backdrop of two of the biggest shocks to our economy and public finances that any of us will ever live through: the pandemic and then the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis it produced. The Government have spent nearly half a trillion pounds supporting the country, keeping people in work, and supporting businesses and households.
I know that Labour bangs on about the fact that we have had to increase taxes to pay for all of that, but we all know that, had Labour been in power over the past few years, the bill would have been even higher, because it wanted longer lockdowns and tighter restrictions. Every time we came forward with measures of support, Labour said that they were not enough and that we should be spending more. Therefore, as much as Labour Members may criticise—and they think it is their job to do so—the country knows that, had they been in power, the bills would have been higher and we would have had to put up taxes by even more in order to balance the books. But because of the difficult decisions that we have made, we are now able to start to cut taxes for people, which is hugely welcome.
Despite all that is being said, the reality is that the effective tax rate is at the lowest it has been since 1975. Let us not forget that shortly after 1975, under a Labour Government, the top tax rate in this country was 83%. I know why Labour Members talk about high taxes; it is because they know more about high taxes than anyone else. We also have to put this in the context of the personal allowance being increased since 2010, when it was £6,475. It is now £12,570. The personal allowance has almost doubled, which has been a welcome and important measure. The Labour party criticises us because we have had to make the difficult decision to freeze the personal allowance for a few years, but let us remember that, between 2010 and 2021, Labour voted against every single Finance Bill that we introduced to increase the personal allowance. Every time we tried to increase the personal allowance, Labour opposed it, so we will take no lessons from Labour when it comes to personal allowances.
I welcome the Government’s ambition to continue to reduce national insurance and ultimately scrap it, because it is a double tax on work. That is the right ambition, and let us be clear that it is an ambition. I know that Labour Front Benchers are enjoying making a point about that. After the fiasco of Labour’s £28 billion green deal promise—which was not a promise, then was, and now is not—I would have thought that Labour would know the difference between an ambition and a promise. It is an ambition, and it is absolutely right to have that ambition. I looked up a headline from 2020 in The Guardian—not the most pro-Conservative, right-wing newspaper—which said, “A truly bold Chancellor would scrap national insurance”. I am very happy that we have a bold Chancellor who has said that the Government’s ambition is to scrap national insurance.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Member mentioned the green deal. I have hundreds of constituents who were essentially screwed under the 2010 Government’s green deal with the Lib Dems. Rogue builders were allowed to screw them out of thousands of pounds. The Government have done nothing for my constituents. What does he have to say about that?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Newlands, you are incredibly intelligent. Maybe next time you will think of a different way of expressing that.
Steve Double
I am not sure what the hon. Member’s intervention has to do with the Bill, but I am sure that all his constituents who are in work will welcome the 4% cut in national insurance. The Scottish National party has raised taxes to their highest level anywhere in the United Kingdom, so I am sure that his constituents will be grateful for the Bill.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), I represent a constituency with a higher-than-average number of pensioners. Some of them have been in touch with me questioning why, as far as they could see, there was nothing in the Budget for them. Clearly, cutting national insurance does not affect them because they do not pay it. We have to remember that the Government have kept the triple lock commitment. Pensioners rightly had a 10% rise in their pensions last year. I was one of those who fought hard in the autumn of 2022 to ensure that we kept that commitment. Next month, they will rightly get a further 8.5% rise in their pensions. When those measures are combined, pensions will have gone up by 18.5% over two years, which is a significant rise. We have rightly kept our promise to pensioners. It is in that context that the Government have now rightly focused on supporting people in work and in jobs, which is very welcome.
We have to set this Bill and the 2% cut that it delivers in the context of the 2% cut that we made in January and the fact that, because of our careful management of the public finances and the economy, inflation is coming down and the green shoots of growth are back in our economy. For those reasons, we are able to make the decision to cut national insurance. I am happy to vote for the Bill this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To start the wind-ups, I call Tulip Siddiq.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Labour will always support policies that ease the burden on working people. Labour has said consistently that we want taxes on working people to be lower. That is why, two years ago, when the current Prime Minister wanted to increase national insurance, we opposed it. That is why we supported the cut to national insurance last autumn and why we will support these measures we are debating to bring down national insurance by a further 2p. Let us be clear, however, that the measures come in the context of the highest tax burden on working people since 1949—a tax burden that is continuing to rise. The British public face not just further tax rises, but stagnant growth and wages, prices still going up in the shops, and higher mortgages and rents. Indeed, this will be the only Parliament on record in which living standards have fallen.
Unwilling and unable to fix the economic mess that they have created, the Government have resorted to empty promises—pledge after pledge, but never a plan. Last week, the Chancellor made a £46 billion unfunded promise to abolish national insurance altogether, with no explanation of how he would pay for it. I look forward to the Minister explaining in his speech exactly how it will be paid for. The British people are sick and tired of Conservative spin.
Let us take the Government’s claim that a person on average earnings will be £900 better off as result of this national insurance cut, when combined with the changes made in January. That completely ignores the Chancellor’s own stealth tax rises. His decision not to increase tax thresholds in line with inflation means that the tax burden is forecast to rise by another £41.1 billion over the next five years. That fiscal drag will create 3.7 million new taxpayers by 2028-29. OBR figures show that for every 10p extra that working people pay in tax under this plan, they will get back only 5p as result of the combined cuts to national insurance contributions. As usual, the Conservatives give with one hand, and take with the other, and they expect the British public to be grateful.
Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said after last week’s Budget that
“this remains a parliament of record tax rises”,
and that is before we consider the rising cost of bills, with food prices up by 25%, rents by 10% and mortgages by an average of £240 a month. Rather than people being £900 better off, as the Conservatives claim, household income is set to fall by £200 over the course of this Parliament.
A week ago, the Chancellor had the opportunity to deliver a Budget that would finally break our country out of the low-growth, low-wage, high-tax cycle that we have been trapped in because of 14 years of economic failure. The British people needed a Budget for the long term to bring prosperity and rebuild our public services, and yet the Chancellor ended his Budget with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan to abolish national insurance. That would leave a gaping hole in the public finances, put family finances at risk and create huge uncertainty for pensioners. I have not heard one attempt from the Government Benches to explain where that money will come from. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I am sure he will break down exactly where that £46 billion will come from.
Gavin Newlands
If the measure is so bad, why is the hon. Lady not voting against it?
Tulip Siddiq
I will not take any lectures from a party that puts oil and gas companies ahead of working people. If the hon. Member wants to change his policy on oil and gas companies having priority over working people, he can intervene again, but somehow I do not think that it will change.
The last time the Conservatives implemented a proposal like this, just 18 months ago, they crashed the economy. In fact, the Chancellor’s plan to abolish national insurance contributions would cost more per year than the proposals in that disastrous mini-Budget. The Conservatives might deny it, but millions of people are still paying the price of their last ideological experiment: the typical family faces an extra £240 a month when remortgaging this year. The Chancellor’s commitment last week exposed a Conservative Government who are putting party first and country second.
Labour is under no illusions about the state of the public finances after 14 years of Conservative government. We know that if we are elected at the next general election, we will have to take tough decisions in government, but instead of the chaos and recklessness we have seen under the Conservatives, Labour will bring stability and security back to the economy. We will never make a commitment without first saying where the money will come from. We will always be honest with the public because that is the responsible approach.
I hope that the Minister, whom I like very much, will finally come clean with the British people in his response. I hope that he will finally break with his party’s irresponsible promises and endless spin. I hope that he will be honest and say that, as a result of decisions taken by his Government, the tax burden on working people is forecast to go up each year over the next five years, and that for every 10p extra that working people pay in tax under the Conservatives, they will get only 5p back. Most importantly, I hope that he takes the opportunity to be straight with the British people, as we have repeatedly asked him to do, by setting out exactly how his Government will pay for their unfunded £46 billion promise to abolish national insurance.
Tulip Siddiq
No, I am finishing.
The British people deserve better. This is just another Conservative pledge without a plan. The Conservatives should call a general election now.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I think it would be fair to say that a range of perspectives have been presented, but most of us—certainly on the Government Benches—agree that this is an important piece of legislation. It will deliver tax cuts that make the tax system fairer, while rewarding and incentivising work, and growing the economy in a sustainable way. The national insurance cuts are an important part of that, and they are policy.
I want to respond to the confusion of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), which is understandable given that we have heard promises, policies, aspirations and ambitions from the Labour party in relation to the £28 billion. Let me be clear: it is my party’s ambition to eliminate national insurance. I know that Labour Members do not understand what the word “ambition” means and that it is difficult, but it is an ambition. That is the difference.
I will briefly reiterate the Bill’s main measures and what they seek to achieve. First, the Bill builds on the cuts to national insurance announced in the autumn statement by reducing the main rate of class 1 employee NICs from 10% to 8%. That change will come into effect from 6 April 2024, with employees benefiting from April onwards as employers make the changes to their payroll systems. Secondly, the Bill reduces the self-employed class 4 main rate of NICs from 8% to 6% from 6 April. That follows on from the one percentage point reduction to the main rate of class 4 NICs from 9% to 8% announced in the autumn statement 2023.
Now that inflation is falling and the economy is improving, as we saw in this morning’s figures, which I am sure the Opposition welcome, we can responsibly return some money to taxpayers, but it is important to do so in a way that supports work and grows a sustainable economy for the future. A UK employee can already earn more money before paying income tax and social security contributions than an employee in any other G7 country, and thanks to the NICs cuts in the autumn statement and the spring Budget and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, an average worker on £35,400 in 2024-25 will pay over £1,500 less in personal taxes than they would have done if the thresholds had just increased in line with inflation. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) pointed out very well, in contrast to the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, we have reduced the amount of tax paid by increasing the threshold from £6,500 to more than £12,500 over the period in which we have been in office. Labour opposed many of those threshold increases.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay also made the important point that the measures we have taken in recent fiscal events have been focused on helping 29 million workers. Some 27 million employees will benefit from an average £900 saving in national insurance, but of course, we also care deeply about pensioners. Those on the full basic pension will receive an extra £700 in April and those on the full new state pension will receive an extra £900, so 12 million pensioners will also benefit from the significant increases that we will provide through the triple lock. Of course, it is perfectly fair that workers also get some advantage—they will be receiving the benefits I have outlined. The Government are cutting taxes in a responsible way, and have taken difficult but responsible decisions to restore the public finances in the wake of global crises.
Drew Hendry
The Minister has used the word “responsible” a number of times. As has been pointed out by many organisations, not least the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the OBR, there will be substantial cuts to public services. With many English councils already in special measures—effective bankruptcy—where does the Minister see those cuts falling? How will they filter through to the public, and what will be the effect on public sector jobs?
Nigel Huddleston
As the hon. Member will be aware and as the Chancellor outlined, based on current spending assumptions, total departmental spending will still be £86 billion higher in real terms by 2028-29 than at the start of this Parliament. If he was listening to the debates earlier this week, he will be aware that we will increase spending in real terms by 1% during the forecast period.
The hon. Member and others have raised points about fairness and making sure that we look after the most vulnerable in society, which is of course something we are committed to. Distributional analysis published alongside the spring Budget shows that the typical household at any income decile will see a net benefit in 2024-25 as a result of Government decisions made in the autumn statement—and, indeed, from the autumn statement 2022 onwards—and that low-income households will see the largest benefit as a percentage of income.
We have mentioned many times our commitment to the national living wage. It will soon increase by 9.8% to £11.44, which is expected to benefit around 2.7 million workers. It is important to stress that from April, a full-time national living wage worker’s take-home pay will be 35% greater in real terms than it was in 2010, due to successive increases in the national living wage and changes to personal tax rates and thresholds.
To respond to a few other comments made by right hon. and hon. Members, my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Wokingham (John Redwood) both gave excellent speeches, in which they not only championed workers—including the self-employed—but highlighted the fact that we have to operate in a particular context. As has been mentioned many times today, we are in a difficult financial situation because of a global pandemic that hit the global economy, which was followed by the invasion of Ukraine and the significant impact it had on inflation around the world.
The question, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out, is how much higher taxes would be if Labour had been in charge. Throughout the pandemic, the Government received a lot of support from Members on both sides of the Chamber. That was completely right, but many Members were calling for even greater intervention and even longer lockdowns, which would potentially have done immense damage to the economy.
Some hon. Members raised the contributory principle. In our ambition for further reductions in national insurance, we will make sure that the future tax system has the right mechanism for establishing entitlement to contributory benefits, including the state pension. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the rise in the VAT threshold, which is really important. It will go from £85,000 to £90,000, which means that 28,000 fewer small businesses will be registered for VAT. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) highlighted this Government’s record on jobs in creating 800 jobs a day and in significantly reducing youth unemployment, of which we can all be proud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who raised many important points in his speech, pointed out the rather irresponsible scaremongering we have heard today from those on the Labour Front Bench relating to spending on pensions and the NHS. The Opposition should be well aware, especially if they wish to form a Government, that the money raised by NICs does not determine the amount going to the NHS and state pensions. We have announced increasing funding to the NHS and we are uprating state pensions by 8.5% this year, as I have mentioned. We on these Benches can tolerate a decent debate—we are fairly robust— but we will not tolerate irresponsible scaremongering, especially when targeted at the most vulnerable in society, purely to try to take political advantage from making up policies that do not exist. I hope that at some point the Opposition will either get some economic competence or apologise for that.
This really important Bill delivers tax cuts for over 29 million working people. A yearly saving of over £450 for the average worker will result from this Bill alone. Taken together with the cuts to NICs at the autumn statement, it will be worth over £900 per year for the average worker. This will benefit households throughout the United Kingdom and in every single constituency represented in this place. However, here we are again, and in nearly three hours of debate, we have heard nothing but doom and gloom from the Opposition. How disappointed they must have been this morning to hear that the economy has grown. While I am not pretending for one minute that everything is perfect—as I have said, our constituents and the country have been through a very challenging time—it is important to recognise, welcome and applaud success, especially if a party wants to lead a country, champion trade abroad and attract investment. What a terrible advert for the UK we have heard from the Opposition today, who are completely lacking in confidence and ambition for our economy and our workers.
The national insurance cuts we are debating reward work and will provide a further boost to the economy. We are turning a corner, and the plan is working. While we want to put more money back into people’s pockets, the Opposition want to take more out, and while we take every opportunity to talk the country up, they take every opportunity to talk Britain down. The choice is very clear: a plan for growth and a brighter future with the Conservatives, or no hope, no clue and no plan with the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Should there be a vote on the amendment, 10 minutes will be allowed, and if there is then a vote on Second Reading, eight minutes will be allowed.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 13th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 March 2024 - (13 Mar 2024)
17:27 - divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:43 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 41 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that in Committee of the whole House they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. They should please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable—I think I have been called all of those at some stage.
Clause 1
Reduction in rates
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 and 3 stand part. I will take the selected new clauses as a separate debate after the clause stand debates.
Nigel Huddleston
I outlined the purpose of the Bill in my earlier speech. It is a short and clear Bill with a very clear purpose. It is our desire to move quickly in order for the changes to take effect from 6 April 2024. I sense Members’ desire to move quickly in cutting people’s taxes, and I will detain the Committee no longer.
James Murray
I fear that my speech may be marginally longer than the Minister’s, but I can assure you, Mr Chair, that it will not be too lengthy, because, as I made clear on Second Reading, we will support the national insurance reductions that the clauses in the Bill seek to deliver.
Clause 1 seeks to reduce national insurance contributions by reducing the main rates of employee class 1 and self-employed class 4 contributions, as well as the reduced rate that applies to a historic group of married women and widows. Clause 2 seeks to amend the calculation of annual maximum contributions and is effectively consequential on clause 1. Clause 3 sets out that the Bill will come into force on 6 April.
I would like the Minister to answer a couple of questions when he responds. Will he set out what conversations he has had with employers and payroll software developers about whether they will be ready to implement the provisions in this Bill from the start of the next financial year? I think I heard the Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), say on Second Reading that he was confident that a majority of employees would receive this tax cut at the beginning of the financial year, but is the Minister confident that every relevant employee will indeed receive the cut to national insurance in their first pay cheque of financial year 2024-25?
More widely, we support what this simple Bill seeks to achieve, so we will support all three clauses being approved by this Committee of the whole House.
The Second Deputy Chairman
That was marginally longer, as the hon. Gentleman said. I call Kirsty Blackman.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you very much, Mr Chair—hopefully that is an acceptable form of address to use. I want to speak about the Bill in general and some of our concerns about it. The reality is that this is the wrong measure at the wrong time, as I said on Second Reading.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) spoke about her concerns about the SNP’s policies on oil and gas. She says that we are not putting workers first. Unfortunately, the Labour party’s plans for green investment in energy mean that 100,000 jobs will be lost in Scotland, which is very clearly not putting workers first—unless it is only workers in England who count—given that the money will go on nuclear power.
On the details of this Bill, the reality is that public services are creaking and really struggling. I have spoken to the Electoral Commission, which is concerned about whether it will even be able to deliver elections properly, given that mandatory voter ID has been introduced. The commission was able to co-opt people from other areas in order to ensure that all the recent by-elections were run properly. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that if there is a general election this year—which there almost has to be; there certainly has to be one in the coming financial year—local authorities will have enough money and people to be able to deliver and service those elections? Will they have enough resources to be able to do that?
The 2022 autumn statement allocated more money to the NHS for 2024-25 than this Budget allocates, so it is a bit of a cheek for any Conservative Member to stand up and say that the Government are putting more money into the NHS. They are putting less money into the NHS than they proposed in autumn 2022. The consequentials that arise from the increase this year are actually less than the in-year consequentials that the Scottish Government had for the NHS in this current year, so it is a very minor increase, because it only works out to in-year terms—[Interruption.] Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) want to intervene? It is ridiculous for the Government to say, “This extra money is going into the NHS” when it is demonstrably less than they intended to spend on the NHS back in autumn 2022.
The Bill is going to make changes to the national insurance rates, and those changes will disproportionately impact higher earners. The Minister was slightly disingenuous when he said that the changes represent a higher percentage for people on lower incomes. Yes, but that is significantly less money. A band 2 worker in the NHS will be getting a £341 reduction in their national insurance rate. An MP in this House will get four times that. How is it fair that somebody in this House who is, in the main, not struggling to make ends meet will get £1,300 when someone working in the NHS will get only £300?
NHS workers have seen exactly the same increase in their energy bills as we have. They have seen exactly the same increase in council tax—actually, no, they have seen a much higher increase in their council tax bills if they live in England compared with those who live in Scotland. They have seen the same 25% hike in food prices. Given that those on lower incomes spend more money on food proportionately than those on higher incomes, that 25% inflation in food prices disproportionately hits families who are earning less. Therefore, we need to give even more to those families, rather than saying, “Well, it’s a higher percentage of your income so you’re okay. You’ll be fine with £340, but those people who are earning 85 grand a year standing in the House of Commons deserve £1,300.”
The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) made a very good speech on this change, and as he said, it is the essence of trickle-down economics in action. The Government are hoping that if rich people get richer and inequality increases, those people at the bottom of the pile will somehow magically get richer as well. There are much better ways to do this. One of the worst things about this whole situation—apart from the fact that Labour Members are unwilling to oppose it—is the decimation of public services that will result from it. The fact is that we have had 14 years of austerity and that is set to continue. People are going to lose out on vital services. The NHS is absolutely vital. Every one of us has had some sort of interaction with the NHS, yet the Government are setting themselves up for decades of pay battles with staff members because they will be unable to give the pay uplift that people deserve. They are setting us up for the decimation of those services.
I mentioned in my Budget speech last week that £1 billion-worth of cuts have been made by local councils to arts funding. That means children cannot access arts education, cannot go to a local theatre with reduced-price tickets from their local council, and cannot access all these extra things. People are struggling to access the most basic services because local authorities are creaking at the seams, yet the UK Government’s priorities are to allow a 4.99% increase in council tax and to ensure that higher earners get £1,300 whereas those on the minimum wage of £11.44 an hour who work 20 hours a week see absolutely no benefit.
Nigel Huddleston
I probably will not respond to everything we have heard today, as we thoroughly addressed many of the issues in the Budget debate.
In response to the new comments, I assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that we always ensure that the democratic process is adequately funded. She is dismissive of the £2.45 billion increase in NHS spending that was outlined in the Budget, but it is a significant amount and, as she is aware, it is a real-terms increase. I agree with the hon. Lady on the importance of arts, culture and the other areas she mentioned, which is precisely why the Budget had measures to extend tax reliefs.
My opposite number, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), asked about the logistics of implementing and executing the tax change. We understand the impact of policy changes, and I put on record how grateful we are for all those who have implemented and executed the recent changes so speedily and effectively. Employees whose employer is unable to make changes in time, and who have left their employment, may request a refund from HMRC. The Government are confident that the majority of software developers will be able to make changes to their payroll software in time for 6 April.
On the new clauses, we have outlined the policy today. The impact of any changes to policy would, of course, be subject to the usual public scrutiny of costs, including from the OBR. It is therefore not necessary to produce a report at this stage. The OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” publication for the spring 2024 Budget includes an analysis of the impacts of threshold freezes, including on the number of people brought into paying tax. It is therefore not necessary to produce an additional report at this stage, so we do not believe new clause 1 is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Review of the effects of reducing employee and self-employed NIC contributions to zero
“(1) The Treasury must publish before the end of the parliamentary session in which this Act is passed an analysis of the effect of —
(a) replacing “8%” with “0%” in section 1(1) of this Act,
(b) replacing “1.85%” with “0%” in section 1(2) of this Act, and
(c) replacing “6%” with “0%” in section 1(3) of this Act.
(2) The analysis in subsection (1) must set out the expected impact of the changes in subsection (1)(a) to (c) on total receipts to the National Insurance Fund in each of the financial years from 2024/25 to 2028/29.
(3) The Treasury must request the Government Actuary to make an assessment of the consequences for the Consolidated Fund in each of the financial years from 2024/25 to 2028/29 of shortfalls in the National Insurance Fund that would result from a zero rate for employee and self-employed national insurance contributions.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause would require the Government, before the end of the current parliamentary session, to set out what the impact would be on total receipts from national insurance and overall public finances of reducing national insurance contributions for employees and self-employed people to zero.
Brought up, and read the First time.
James Murray
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 2—Review of effects of frozen thresholds—
“The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons within three months of the passing of this Act a report which sets out its forecasts of the change to the number of people paying national insurance contributions as a result of the thresholds for payment of national insurance remaining frozen over the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, rather than rising in line with CPI.”
James Murray
As I made clear in the previous debate, we support the national insurance reductions that the Bill seeks to deliver. However, the Chancellor followed the announcement of these reductions in last week’s Budget speech by pulling a rabbit out of his hat that, frankly, left us shocked and deeply concerned.
The Chancellor closed his Budget statement by committing the Conservative party to an unfunded £46 billion tax plan. It is quite incredible, and it tells us everything we need to know about the state of the Conservative party that he would use his last Budget before the general election to promise a plan that leaves a £46 billion hole in the public finances, that puts family finances at risk, and that raises the prospect of higher tax bills for pensioners across the country.
People across Britain are still paying the price for the reckless and unfunded tax plans in the disastrous mini-Budget, so it beggars belief that the very top of the Conservative party—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor —now want to go into the general election with an unfunded tax plan even greater than we saw in the autumn of 2022. We know just how damaging and irresponsible the Conservatives’ unfunded tax plans are for the British economy and for families across the country. Yet for a week now, and in Parliament today, Ministers from the Prime Minister down have been unable to say how this £46 billion tax plan will be funded.
People deserve answers. Are the Conservatives planning to increase taxes, including on Britain’s 8 million taxpaying pensioners? Are they planning to increase borrowing? Are they planning to cut our vital public services to pay for their £46 billion black hole? Ministers are refusing to answer, so our new clause 1 will force them to do so.
James Murray
No, I am going to make some progress.
The public deserve to know whether the Prime Minister’s commitment to abolish national insurance means tax hikes for pensioners, even higher borrowing, cuts to important public services, or all of the above.
Richard Fuller
I hate reading and I probably will not be able to read this out either, because my eyes are not good. The shadow Minister talked about what the Chancellor said at the end of the Budget, so let me tell him that he said the following about any further cut:
“When it is responsible, when it can be achieved without increasing borrowing and when it can be delivered without compromising high-quality public services”. —[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 851-52.]
So what problem does the shadow Minister have with cutting taxes on working people?
James Murray
The problem we have with the Chancellor’s announcement is that he has said that in the next Parliament he wants to abolish NI contributions. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister said that on the Saturday following the Budget. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have again and again, in emails to party members and in interviews with media outlets, made it clear that that is what they want to do. I appreciate that some Treasury Ministers have been flip-flopping a bit when they have been out on their media rounds and have not entirely been able to toe the party line. But going into the general election, I would listen to what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are saying, and if they are saying that they want to abolish NI and create a £46 billion black hole in the public finances, they should stand up here and defend that to the people of Great Britain today.
The reckless way in which the Conservatives announced their unfunded tax plan and then refused to give any more details exposes the risk of five more years of them in power. It is clear the Conservatives will happily gamble with the public finances and yet again leave working people being forced to pay the price. As they have been unwilling to explain how their plan will be funded, we will today vote to force the Government to come clean on the impact of their £46 billion tax plan on the state of public finances.
Owen Thompson
I am very interested in this and am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am struggling to understand whether he is for or against the proposed cut in NI. It would be helpful if he would be clear on that. It sounds as though he is saying that the Opposition do not support it, but if that is the case, why would they not have come through the Lobby with us in opposing it?
James Murray
I am happy to provide clarification for the hon. Gentleman. We have had an extended debate about this today, where we have made it clear on several occasions that we support the Government’s cut in NI, because we believe that the tax burden on working people is too high and we want to see it come down. What we do not support is an unfunded £46 billion tax plan that the Chancellor has committed the Conservative party to. That is the subject of our new clause that we are debating now, and I look forward to his joining us in voting for it in a few moments.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point, not least because, to all intents and purposes, the Chancellor’s ambition is to abolish NI altogether. That unfunded tax cut requires a 6% increase in income tax just for us to stand still, unless something is going to give. Do national insurance qualifying years not count towards how much state pension someone is entitled to get? So how do we recalculate one’s entitlement to state pension if the qualifying years do not exist because NI does not exist?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention, setting out just some of the problems created by this reckless plan that the Conservatives have put out into the public domain and are refusing to explain or withdraw.
We know that if the Chancellor’s proposal to merge national insurance and income tax were to be followed, it would push up income tax by 6.5%, meaning pensioners would pay, on average, £800 more a year. My hon. Friend also makes important points about the impact of the plan on eligibility to the basic state pension. Again, Members on the Government Front Bench have not answered those questions. They had nothing to say on any of those points, which are concerning people across the country, when they responded earlier.
We have tabled new clause 1 because it will force the Government to come clean about these issues. Ministers are refusing to stand at the Dispatch Box to explain how they will fund their £46 billion black hole or to withdraw their policy entirely. New clause 1 will force them to set that out. Because they have been unwilling to explain how they will fund their plan, we will force them to come clean on its impact on public finances.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
Not only is there concern about where the funding would come from, but in the Treasury Committee just now the Chancellor refused to rule out increasing income tax in order to fund the abolition of NI contributions. The House of Commons Library has said that merging NICs and income tax would require an 8% increase in the basic and higher rates of income tax. What will that do for the long-term future of the UK economy?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us that update from the Treasury Committee about what the Chancellor has been saying. Again, we can see the Chancellor being reckless by talking about merging national insurance with income tax without having a second thought for what impact that would have on hard-pressed taxpayers, particularly pensioners. Pensioners do not currently pay national insurance on their earnings and would be hit by a tax increase as a result of national insurance and income tax being merged. That is another example of how reckless these plans are, and how reckless it is for Treasury Ministers to refuse to stand up and explain how their plans would be funded.
The public deserves to know. If Ministers vote against our new clause or they refuse to come clean, then the British people will have it confirmed, yet again, that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy, public finances or the finances of households across our country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans—surely it is long overdue that it should be Sir Nigel, but we will go with Mr Evans for today.
I stand to move new clause 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Hon. Members will see that the effect of new clause 2 would be fairly short in its compass. It would compel the Treasury to report to this House its forecasts of the change to the number of people who are set to pay national insurance contributions as a result of the thresholds for payment remaining frozen until 2028, instead of increasing in line with the consumer prices index, which would be the case otherwise. The Chancellor and other Ministers have spoken today about the pride the Government take in what they are doing. In the interests of transparency, the Government should have no difficulty accepting new clause 2. I am sure it is merely an inadvertent omission that those measures are not part of the Bill already.
It is apparent that comments made by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and others about the idea of abolishing national insurance altogether have started a debate, as we have seen this afternoon. It is a substantial commitment to make—£46 billion—and we do not yet know where that money would come from. That is maybe not the novelty that it used to be, certainly before the mini-Budget. However, it offers us an opportunity to think a little bit about the nature of national insurance as a tax, because it is quite distinct in its composition and operation.
In practical terms, functionally, national insurance is more or less like any other tax, in as much as money is paid into the Exchequer and fills the coffers, and then is spent as the Government or Governments see fit—in relation to health, policing, transport, Ministers’ legal fees or whatever else it is going to be.
As a matter of intent and purpose, however, national insurance is identifiably different from the other taxes we pay. More than any other levy, it is the symbol of our shared obligations—what we owe each other as a society and as communities in support throughout our lives. The point of national insurance is that we pool and share resources geographically and generationally. We pay our stamp on each payslip, trusting that, when the time comes for us to retire, someone else will continue to pay taxes that will fund our pensions.
Let us remember that the roots of this tax are in Lloyd George’s Budget, and that the introduction of national insurance came with the introduction of the pension. That is why we have the legacy of the link between national insurance and pensions, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in an intervention. That is significant. These are matters that must be clarified before we undertake a change of this sort.
At the heart of any healthy liberal democratic society, there is the idea that we have lasting obligations to one another. We have obligations to those we know, to those we do not know, to generations that are older than us, and to those who are yet to be born. We can be bound by policies with which we disagree, and sometimes we must pay taxes for things that we dislike or that we feel we do not need. That is the system in which the national insurance contribution has a demonstrably significant and different impact than other taxes. It is part of the tapestry of government and public life in this country.
This is perhaps just pulling at a thread, but the Minister and, indeed, people in all parts of the House would be well advised to consider exactly what they may be unravelling by pulling at this thread. Full transparency from the Government on the effect of freezing national insurance contributions in the way that has been proposed should be an important part of this debate as it proceeds.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you very much. Can someone from the Liberal Democrats inform the Chair who their tellers will be, as their amendment has been selected for a separate Division?
Nigel Huddleston
As I mentioned earlier, the impact of policy and any changes to policy will be subject to the usual public scrutiny, including from the OBR on costs. It is therefore not necessary to produce additional reports. I will not play into the hands of the Opposition today by commenting further on their scaremongering. I refer the shadow Minister to the answer that I gave earlier, which I thought was quite clear. I am sorry that he is incapable of understanding the difference between an ambition and a policy, but the rest of the House seems to understand it. Hopefully, he will catch up at some point.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated throughout the Bill’s passage today, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Deputy Speakers for skilfully guiding us through the process. I also thank all the Clerks, all stakeholders and all the officials for their work on bringing the Bill to the Floor and delivering tax cuts to the people of the United Kingdom. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray
As I have made clear throughout the Bill’s consideration, Labour supports the national insurance reductions that it seeks to deliver. I am disappointed, however, that Conservative MPs voted to block our new clause. Since the Chancellor announced the Conservatives’ plan to abolish national insurance contributions last week, Ministers have refused again and again—including today—to say how that will be funded or what impact it will have. We believe people deserve to know what impact the Conservatives’ £46 billion unfunded tax plan will have on pensioners and their pensions, on public services and on the health of our economy. Our new clause would have required the Government to come clean and be honest with the British public. Instead, Ministers have decided to vote against us and stick to their reckless and irresponsible unfunded tax plan.
It is still not clear how this reckless commitment to abolishing national insurance will be funded or what impact it will have on pensioners, pensions, public services, borrowing or the state of our economy. But what is clearer than ever is that the Conservatives are the party of reckless, irresponsible, unfunded tax plans that threaten our economy, our public services and the finances of households across the country. Only Labour will bring stability and the responsible approach our economy needs and only a general election will give the British people the chance to vote for change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Scottish National party spokesperson Kirsty Blackman.
Kirsty Blackman
We do not support this change. This cut disproportionately benefits those earning the most. We in the SNP recognise the value that the public sector provides. We believe it should be properly funded to deliver our vital public services, and we do not believe that they can cope with more cuts on the back of 14 years of austerity and the trials of Brexit and the pandemic. We want excellent public services for all, and we are not scared to make that absolutely clear.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 147 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Presumption of Parental Involvement in Child Arrangements
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
I am grateful to have the chance to speak in the Chamber on the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements. When I was elected, I made a promise to be an advocate for victims of domestic abuse. At that time, I had no idea that the court proceedings between my ex-husband and me would continue for another four years, restricting my ability to raise publicly the horrors of the family court system for those who have been a victim of rape, abuse and coercive control, as I have. In a landmark ruling in 2021, I waived my right to anonymity and the Court of Appeal ruled that the findings of fact against my ex-husband, confirming the allegations I had made against him of repeated rape and abuse, should be made public. The Court, in its judgment, found that I had been subjected to the vilest abuse, and that Andrew Griffiths had used his position of power to cause the utmost physical and emotional distress against me.
Those who know me well will know that I am usually a very private person. The thought of allowing reporters to write about what had happened to me—very private details, many of which I had covered up for years—was a terrifying one, but after years of being bullied and controlled by a seemingly powerful man, I knew that I had to stand up and use my platform to help others.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for her strength, courage and tenacity in speaking up on this important issue, drawing on her personal experience. She is a great role model for us all.
Kate Kniveton
I thank my right hon. Friend.
Despite the landmark ruling that I achieved, my time within the family court system was far from over. Despite the Court confirming that my child’s father was abusive and a rapist, it was decided that contact should continue through a contact centre and that I should pay for 50% of the cost of that contact. I could not believe that anyone felt my child, whom I had been fighting to protect, would benefit from further contact with such an abusive and violent man, and that I—someone who had been subjected to that violent behaviour—should not only facilitate that contact but pay towards it.
Thankfully, after further costly and lengthy legal proceedings, a ruling was made to overturn that decision. Hopefully that has set a precedent that a victim of rape should not have to subsidise the rapist’s costs of contact.
Despite the public reporting of my case, I was not able to speak freely of my experiences until the final decision was made. However, after a gruelling five years, a ruling was delivered last month that confirmed that Andrew Griffiths, the former MP and Minister, should no longer be allowed contact with his child—my child. I had finally achieved a ruling after making the case that the man who had abused me over a 10-year period was not safe to have contact with our child.
I am really thankful that those proceedings have now concluded and, although I am traumatised not just by the 10 years of abuse I experienced at the hands of my ex-husband but by the following five years in which he continued to use the legal system to abuse me, I will not hesitate to tell my story and to try to make the changes that will help other women protect their children.
These were landmark rulings because, until now, other victims of domestic abuse, violence and rape have not been able to offer protection to their children in the same way or to talk about their family court experiences. Having lived with the thought of the prospect for many years, I can only imagine what it feels like to hand your child over to someone who has caused you, and continues to cause you, so much harm.
I stand in the Chamber today as a supposed winner, congratulated on succeeding against my ex-husband, but quite frankly I stand here drained financially and emotionally. I am not sure this is what people believe winning feels like, but I know what the alternative must feel like and I will do all I can to stand beside those fighting for their children’s safety. I want to give them hope that this Government recognise the problems in the family court and are determined to help.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and I thank her for using this platform to tell her personal story. It takes real bravery to stand up and speak about an issue that not only means something to her but that she has lived through. She has shown exceptional courage in doing so, and we all admire her for it.
I come to the crux of my intervention, which we discussed beforehand. In so many cases, victims of domestic abuse are absolutely terrified about speaking up. There must be more encouragement from our Ministers, our Government and our fellow MPs to ensure that the trauma is not prolonged and that women feel supported to speak up and, in doing so, tell others in similar situations that they are not alone. I say to the hon. Lady, you can be sure that you are not alone.
Kate Kniveton
I thank my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with his point. Domestic abuse is something that happens behind closed doors. If people do not speak out about it, perpetrators will know that it is going to stay behind closed doors. That is why I agreed to the publication of my judgment, in the hope that it will encourage more people to speak out and that it will help future victims and survivors.
I am proud of the work that the Government have done, and I am proud that my party introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which is an incredibly important piece of legislation. The Act provides much-needed clarity that domestic abuse comes in many forms and can be financial, verbal and emotional, as well as physical and sexual. It also recognises that abuse can be a result of patterns over time. The definition also explicitly recognises children as victims if they witness that abuse.
The Act allowed for a Domestic Abuse Commissioner to be appointed to stand up for victims and survivors. I pay tribute to the work of the commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, and her team, who work tirelessly to stand up for victims and survivors; to raise public awareness; and to monitor the response of local authorities, the justice system and other statutory agencies, and hold them to account in tackling domestic abuse. I am grateful for the chance I have had to work with the commissioner and contribute to her report on achieving cultural change in the family court.
Beyond the Domestic Abuse Act, the Government have continued to listen and learn from the experiences of domestic abuse victims. In May 2019, the Government announced an expert panel to look at how the family courts protect children and victims in child arrangement cases relating to domestic abuse and other serious offences. The panel’s final report, “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases”, was published in June 2020. It raised concerns about
“how the family court system recognises and responds to allegations of, and proven harm to children and victim parents in private law children proceedings.”
It stated:
“Submissions highlighted a feeling that abuse is systematically minimised, ranging from children’s voices not being heard, allegations being ignored, dismissed or disbelieved, to inadequate assessment of risk, traumatic court processes, perceived unsafe child arrangements, and abusers exercising continued control through repeat litigation and the threat of repeat litigation.”
The report said that these issues were underpinned by a number of themes, including a “pro-contact culture”.
That report was released almost four years ago. Let us ignore for a second the fact that at the heart of this, the report confirms that victims of domestic abuse are being further traumatised by the court process, and let us look instead at the potential harm to children. Their voices are not being heard, there is inadequate assessment of risk and there are unsafe child arrangements. Perhaps in his response, the Minister might consider how much harm to children has taken place in the four years since those findings were released.
The report echoes many of the experiences the women who have contacted me have shared. It said that
“respondents felt there was little difference in the orders made between cases that did and did not feature domestic abuse”
and that the courts
“almost always ordered some form of contact, frequently unrestricted, and usually without requiring an alleged abuser to address their behaviour”.
It also said:
“Respondents felt that orders made by the court had enabled the continued control of children and adult victims of domestic abuse by alleged abusers, as well as the continued abuse of victims and children.”
It went on to say that respondents “raised concerns” that PD12J, the practice direction that sets out what the court should do in any case in which domestic abuse is alleged or admitted,
“is not operating as intended and is being implemented inconsistently”.
Regarding the presumption of parental involvement specifically, many mothers felt that the presumption
“gave the abusive parent power over the non-abusive parent and the children, and a legal weapon the abuser could use at will”.
They also felt it put a misplaced emphasis on the child’s right to a relationship with both parents, and the father’s right to family life, above the child’s welfare and right to be safe from abuse and its effects. The report said:
“Overall, the evidence received by the panel suggests that the presumption is implemented inconsistently and is rarely disapplied. To the extent that the courts’ pro-contact culture operates as a barrier to addressing domestic abuse, it serves to reinforce that culture.”
It recommended that:
“A review of the presumption of parental involvement…is needed urgently in order to address its detrimental effects.”
An urgent review is needed. It is urgent because of the risk of harm to children, yet almost four years on we are still waiting to hear about that review. The Government had originally expected to complete the review by the summer of 2021. I met the then Justice Secretary in 2021 and offered my support to his team to help them make the positive changes needed. In early 2022, I was advised that the review had been delayed by covid-19, but I was reassured that good progress was being made in taking the work forward. When I raised the matter in this House in early 2023, I was advised that the response to the review would be published
“very soon—as soon as we can do so.”—[Official Report, 21 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 121.]
In mid-2023, in a further update from the Justice Secretary, I was advised that it had taken longer than expected but that the report would be published later that year. In a response to a parliamentary question in November 2023, the Minister advised that it would be published in early 2024.
How many court hearings involving children at risk of abuse have taken place over the years while we have been waiting for the review? A horrifying example of two children, who were murdered by their father after it was ruled that it was in their interests to maintain contact with him, was raised previously in the House. In responding to a question about that case, the Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), explained that:
“The review has to be carefully considered, because of the complexities of parental involvement”.—[Official Report, 16 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 690.]
That feels like we are prioritising the needs of the abuser again.
While we await the review, why do we not prioritise the safety of the child and change the presumption? Where there has been a history of harm, the onus should be on the abusive parent to prove that they should have the contact, not the other way around. Imagine someone having the courage to escape a relationship, to keep themself and their children safe, and putting their trust in our legal system to continue those protections, only to find that they are locked in a further battle with a court that prioritises the right of an abuser to see their child over the safety of the child itself.
Despite everything I have been through, I know that I am lucky. Many would give anything to have received the judgment I did. I am grateful to have had a fantastic legal team: Melanie Bridgen, my solicitor, and Charlotte Proudman, my barrister. Dr Proudman is an incredible advocate on behalf of survivors of domestic abuse and founded the organisation Right to Equality, which is also campaigning for a change in this pro-contact culture.
Right to Equality states:
“Family law reinforces a cultural and legal norm of parental responsibility for both parents, even in cases involving rape and murder by parents, often fathers. This approach fails to adequately consider the safety and well-being of survivors and their children, perpetuating an environment that can place them at risk. Under statute, a married father can never have his parental responsibility removed even if he killed the child’s mother or violently assaulted the child.”
Many case law examples show how survivors’ pleas for protective measures are disregarded and highlight the need for the Government’s urgent attention to fix our statute book.
Research conducted by a team led by the University of Manchester spoke to 45 mothers of 77 children, all of whom reported experiencing abuse. Perhaps the most alarming finding of that study was that 75 out of 77 children were forced into contact with fathers they had reported for abuse, even in cases involving sex abuse convictions. This Government, which has done so much for victims of domestic abuse, need to fix the existing statutory and de facto presumption of child contact at all costs. I urge the Minister to bring forward the review without further delay, to bring about legislative change that creates a safer environment for children and to support a presumption of no child contact in cases where domestic abuse is a relevant factor.
The Minister’s review did not come quickly enough to help me, and I too was dangerously close to being let down by our legal system. Through using every penny I could get my hands on, and every ounce of resilience I could muster to stand in court and repeatedly tell my story, I was able to achieve a landmark ruling. It should not be the exception that only my child has protection from a man found by a court to have committed multiple accounts of rape and abuse against the mother. That should be the standard.
It should send a clear message to those who carry out acts of abuse that it does not matter whether they are an MP or have any other public profile: if they are found by a court to have raped or abused the parent of their child, they are no longer entitled to assume that that child will benefit from contact with them. I ask the Minister today to reform that presumption urgently. Contact should be earned; it should not be given to abusers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) on securing this important debate. I sincerely commend the bravery she has shown by sharing her story and using her experience to support others in similar circumstances. I often find that the House is at its best when colleagues from across the House use their own personal experience to help shape legislation and improve things for those who follow them.
I apologise if some of what I have to say will sound rather cold and clinical, but, sadly, the law is not always warm and friendly, as much as we would like it to be. I will come on to the presumption of parental involvement, but I wish to begin by saying that the acts of abuse perpetrated by the ex-partner of my hon. Friend were clearly and totally abhorrent.
Sadly, the frequency and intensity of violence, psychological abuse, sexual assault, and other types of domestic abuse within households is the horrific reality for too many people in this country, and particularly—although not exclusively—for women and girls. The Government, including myself and my noble Friend Lord Bellamy, are committed to taking every possible action to stop this, and to allowing victims of abuse and their children to live free of the fear and harm inflicted by their abusers.
When such cases come to the family court, the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the court can identify and safeguard both children and parents against such abuse. When the court makes a decision that affects a child, the involvement of parents is often a factor. However, it is the welfare of the child that is the court’s utmost priority in every case. That principle, of the paramountcy of the child’s welfare, is what underpins the Children Act 1989.
The court does seek to protect the adults in a child’s life from harm; for cases involving domestic abuse, the provisions of this are also enshrined in our laws and rules of court. For example, the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 prevents cross-examination of victims by perpetrators and requires rules of court to be made about special measures for victims, such as screens to prevent them from seeing the perpetrator in court.
In family courts, practice direction 12J, as my hon. Friend mentioned, notes that the court must be satisfied that any order does not expose either the child or parent to a risk of further harm. Therefore, while the welfare of the child is absolutely paramount, the welfare of parent victims is an equally important consideration of the family court and of the Government.
Moving on to the presumption of parental involvement itself, the Government are very mindful of the need to ensure that, where it is safe, a child should benefit from the involvement of both parents in their lives, but I do stress that it is only where it is safe to do so.
The aim of the introduction of the statutory presumption in 2014 was to codify decades of existing case law and international commitments, and to place in law a process whereby the potential risk posed by a parent is fully considered, and only subsequently is their involvement in a child’s life considered.
The presumption is therefore designed to achieve two vitally important aims: to ensure that, when safe, children are able to maintain some form of relationship with both their parents, even after they separate; and to ensure that parents who may subject their child or ex-partner to the dangerous and despicable behaviours inherent in domestic abuse are prevented from involvement in their children’s lives. In the example given by my hon. Friend of the serious and horrific cases involving sexual abuse, let me tell her that when the parents in these cases present a risk of harm to their child, they should not be granted involvement in their life.
My hon. Friend has also raised the terrible circumstances in which one parent has murdered the other. We have amended the Victims and Prisoners Bill, so that parents who kill a partner or ex-partner with whom they have children will have their parental responsibility suspended upon sentencing. We are carefully considering options for strengthening the safeguards and procedures already in place to ensure that the family courts can properly protect children.
Ensuring that the survivors of domestic abuse are fully protected by the family court remains a priority for this Government. In 2019, the Ministry of Justice commissioned a review of how the risk of harm to children and parents was assessed in private family law—most commonly known as the harm panel report, to which my hon. Friend referred. Following the recommendations of the panel, we commissioned a further review of how the presumption of parental involvement was being applied in the family courts. I know that my hon. Friend, like several others in this House, has expressed concern over the time taken to complete the review. I can put on record that Ministers in the Department share that frustration of how long it has taken to bring forward our response.
As my hon. Friend said, the delay is, in part, due to covid making it difficult to conduct research, particularly in terms of accessing physical court files, and the challenges in accessing court documents that are in a useable format. However, I am delighted to be able to confirm that the review and the accompanying Government response into the presumption of parental involvement will in fact be published by late spring or early summer of this year. I hope that provides some reassurance that we at least have a slightly firmer date coming forward.
Again, I reassure my hon. Friend that Ministers are equally frustrated. We will bring the response forward. I assure her that the Ministry of Justice is giving full consideration to the literature review of the academic evidence, the sessions conducted with parents who have been through the family courts, the individual case file analysis, the contributions from stakeholders, and the feedback from the advisory board, which was established to ensure that we have drawn upon its expertise in working with victims and children.
The challenge of striking the right, careful balance between addressing the future risk to the child, and to the other parent, and the benefits of having two parents actively involved in the child’s life is one that has occupied Parliament, the judiciary and wider society for decades. It is crucial that, in setting out next steps from the review, we consider the full range of reforms at our disposal to manage the challenge. We must ensure that the understanding of the elements of risk and the best interests of the child in these cases is always clear, and that the balance of those elements is struck correctly.
Let me reiterate a few things that the Government have done to ensure that the child is at the centre, and that the family court system continues to reform and to be fit for purpose, ensuring that parents, and especially children, are protected. Last week, the Chancellor announced an additional £55 million for the family courts. A key element of that funding package is the commitment to funding the roll-out of the pathfinder court approach, which provides a more investigative approach to private law proceedings, with increased support for parties. The pilots engage domestic abuse agencies early on in proceedings to ensure that both parents and children are receiving the support and advice that they need. The approach also ensures that the needs and voice of the child are central to proceedings. That is achieved through detailed investigation into each individual child’s welfare and wishes early on in each case.
The pathfinder courts are currently operating in Dorset and north Wales, and expanding to Birmingham and south-east Wales in a matter of weeks. The additional funding will mean that many more families will benefit from the positive impacts of the model, with the roll-out of the pathfinder model across England and Wales happening as quickly as possible. The additional funding will also result in the creation of a new authoritative online support and advice service for separating parents, and the piloting of free early legal advice for those considering court to resolve their issues.
Over the past 13 years, we have also significantly increased the funding for independent domestic violence advisers, known as IDVAs, and independent sexual violence advisers, known as ISVAs, to support victims going through the family court. We have brought 43% more of those vital professionals into post from 2009-2010 to 2023, with the Ministry of Justice increasing IDVA and ISVA spending by over four times what it was in 2009-2010. Since November 2023, we have also increased our investment by £1.2 million over two years.
Rather than read out many more statistics, let me address one of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, which was the cost—the financial cost, let alone the mental cost. That is why we have been reforming the access to legal aid for victims of domestic abuse. Recently, we have changed the thresholds for income and capital; introduced a new lone parent allowance; created a mandatory disregard of inaccessible capital from the means assessment; removed the cap on the value of capital assets that are not considered in the means test assessment when they are disputed assets; and extended the equity disregard to apply to those who are forced to flee their homes. That will prevent victims who may be on a low income from having to sell their homes.
I share the frustration of my hon. Friend, and I have to say that her story and her campaigning have been incredibly moving. I hope that this Government will be able to address her concerns in the coming months, when we finally publish our response to the report.
Those who have perpetrated abuse against their partner or ex-partner should absolutely feel the consequences of that action. Our reforms of the family courts will continue to increase the support for survivors of domestic abuse and will aim to ensure that parents and children are protected against the abhorrent crime of domestic abuse.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate to examine the issues. I hope that we have gone some way towards explaining how seriously the Government consider them and how seriously we are committed to bringing forward our response in the next few months.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Good morning, colleagues, and good morning, Ms Rees—it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 19 February, and I assure the Committee that they really are as interesting as they sound. They are best described as sensible housekeeping, because if approved by Parliament and made they will complete the legislative framework for overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees of combined county authorities. They make provision in relation to the membership and proceedings of such committees and the allowances for committee members. As Members will be aware, scrutiny and audit are always important, but arguably never more so than now, in a complex and sometimes testing financial environment for local government.
The wider context is that these committees are essential components of the architecture of accountability in combined authorities and combined county authorities. As more powers and resources are devolved to these important bodies and their Mayors, the responsibility to ensure sound governance and effective decision making in the interests of local people and taxpayers becomes ever more important. We are therefore not only ensuring through the regulations that the new combined county authorities have strong and effective overview and scrutiny committees, but pursuing further initiatives to develop this important architecture of accountability; in particular, we have published the English devolution accountability framework and a scrutiny protocol, and we intend shortly to issue revised statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny—[Interruption.] As Skippy the kangaroo bounds into the room, I will pause and welcome the hon. Member for Kingswood to his place, because I have not had the pleasure of doing so. This is the first time he and I have served on a Committee together, and it is a pleasure to do so. I hope he is enjoying his time in the House.
The regulations provide the foundation for the initiatives I have outlined in respect of combined county authorities. If the Committee will bear with me, I will speak briefly about some of the details. The regulations provide for the membership and proceedings of overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees of combined county authorities. They do so by extending the Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2017 so that it applies to combined county authorities as well as to combined authorities, which ensures parity between the two types of authority. At the end of the day, irrespective of which type they are, such bodies are responsible for and spending public money, so ensuring that there is parity of approach is common sense. I detect no dissent between the parties on that.
The regulations enable the payment of allowances to members of constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities who are appointed to overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees. As a way of tidying up, we have also made a few minor changes to the 2017 order to reflect the inclusion of non-constituent members and their nominating bodies in the constitutional arrangements for combined authorities and combined county authorities, and to ensure that the provisions work for both types of authority.
The regulations accommodate the constitutional difference between combined authorities and combined county authorities. If the provisions of the 2017 order were simply applied without modification, there would be no duty on a combined county authority to enable a district council within its area that does not nominate a non-constituent member to refer a matter to the overview and scrutiny committee. The regulations recognise the legitimate interest of such district councils in certain decisions that could be made by the combined county authority by extending the referrals provision to include those councils where a matter relates to the council’s area. That extension also applies to the supply by the CCA of related documents to a council making a referral.
The new allowances provisions were included in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 at the request of some of the existing combined authorities. We believe, as they do, that that will aid quoracy at meetings of overview and scrutiny committees. The regulations enable combined authorities and combined county authorities to pay an allowance to members of their constituent councils who are appointed to overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right to pay members of the combined authorities more, but there is always the slight problem that this is then seen as being about people fighting for posts to get more money, rather than about rewarding people who want to do the job. Is there not a case for the Government to look at paying councillors decent amounts in the first instance, rather than having a system of additional responsibilities? We all know that councillors receive less than the minimum wage if they work full time, and many do end up working full time or quasi-full time. One of the biggest barriers to being a councillor is that working people cannot afford to do it.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, although I am tempted to say it is probably a philosophical point rather than a policy point per se. I served—I think he might have served as well—for 14 years as an elected district or county councillor, and I always saw it as an office rather than as a job. That is why I never thought it was correct, for example, for councillors to be part of the local government pension scheme, which should be specifically reserved for employees. It is, of course, up to local authorities to decide what their allowances are. I certainly agree that being a cabinet member in an upper-tier or unitary authority is virtually a full-time job, and remuneration probably reflects that. However, we should always make the distinction between full-time employment and elected office.
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question none the less, and we are responding to issues that leaders and others have raised with us. It is quite hard to recruit members to scrutiny, audit and, sometimes, pensions committees, principally because they are seen as rather dry and desiccated, not particularly sexy, and involve lots of tables with numbers written all over them. The issue is hugely important, and we will keep a weather eye on it. I am certain that section 151 monitoring officers and council leaders will check the motivations of members applying to go on these committees. The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I hope that he is not and that he will take comfort from the fact that we will keep the issue under review. We have identified a problem, which we are trying to solve, and I hope it does not create another problem, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing important work on speaking to councils to ensure that councillors whose children are born prematurely receive the same support as is available under the new Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023. Will this instrument ensure that it is communicated to combined authorities that, just as for councillors, those extra allowances should be kept open for someone who returns from having a child in neonatal intensive care?
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely because it allows me to pay wholehearted tribute to the work he did on this issue when he was a Minister in the Department. He makes a powerful and compelling point, which he raised with me the week before last at departmental orals on the Floor of the House. The Act covers employees, and because of the differential I was discussing with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, it does not cover councillors per se. However, the moral argument to which my hon. Friend points is clear and unquestionable. I hope he will draw comfort from the fact that I have just this week signed off the text of a letter, which will shortly—certainly before purdah—go to council chief executives and leaders, that makes that point. If parents who happen to be councillors have the additional challenge of a premature birth, with all its concomitant additional family and caring demands, the last thing they should have to worry about is the six-month rule in relation to attendance at meetings, and if they hold down a job in the council that attracts a special responsibility allowance, that should not come into question.
As much as I might wish to, I cannot direct council leaderships to abide by that missive to the letter, but it would be perverse and contrary, to say the least, if a council leader was to say, “No, I am frightfully sorry, but we are not going to take that into account.” That would be rather inhumane, and I know from all my engagements with local government leaders that they are all humane to their fingertips. I thank my hon. Friend again for all the work that he did on the issue both as a Minister and from the Back Benches—a position to which, I have to say, I could never quite understand why he was returned. He was a first-class Minister, and it would be great to see him back in due course.
As I said, we have consulted, and we think we have responded positively. The draft regulations are a tidying-up exercise. They ensure that there is parity, that regulations are robust and transparent, and that there is local accountability, which is what all local council tax payers want to see. We believe that the draft regulations will be an important step in ensuring that our local government architecture is robust, resilient and fit for the future. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on the regulations, and I welcome the opportunity to address them on behalf of the Opposition.
The instrument makes provision for the membership and proceedings of overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees of combined county authorities, and for the payment of allowances to members of constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities who are appointed to those committees. The Minister went into some detail about what the instrument is intended to do and what it covers, but I want to explore some other aspects of it, while obviously staying in scope, Ms Rees.
My first point, on which I know there will be quite different views, relates to the provision made for overview and scrutiny members to receive allowances. I am guessing that that provision focuses primarily on co-opted members with specialisms, who may be brought in to add value to the scrutiny process. However, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about councillor pensions—and I accept the strong argument that being a councillor is a vocation, a call and a public service—the Minister must recognise that the more someone does, the less time they have. There are only so many hours in the day, and if a ward councillor, cabinet member or council leader sits on a combined authority, they may now be giving evidence to an overview and scrutiny committee on top of that. That is a full-time job with full-time responsibilities, and it must not be that working-class people who do not have an independent income are not allowed to build up a pension fund for their retirement for that service. This is a point of principle. I do not want to reopen the whole pension debate, but I place that challenge on the table. This is not black and white, and a degree of realism is required.
The measures essentially mirror powers given to local authorities and current combined authorities, so can the Minister confirm that overview and scrutiny committees will have call-in powers? When executive decisions are made by the combined authority, will overview and scrutiny members have the power to call in that decision? Also—this is important in the light of the recent controversy in Teesside—will their remit cover trading companies and joint venture companies that are undertaking work and contracts on behalf of the combined authority?
Can the Minister confirm that the overview and scrutiny committees will have the power to conduct a best value review? Outside of the work programme that the combined authority will be undertaking, would they have the power to self-organise a work programme of their own and undertake deep-dive reviews as they see fit, whether those are about regeneration projects, transport infrastructure or matters the Government might be imposing, such as clean air zones or spatial development frameworks? Can the Minister confirm that the scrutiny committee will have the power to co-opt expert members and, if so, that the scheme of allowances will be varied to reflect the different costs that that might attract? The cost of populating an overview and scrutiny committee with lay members to get a wider resident perspective might be quite different from the cost of getting a specialised accountancy perspective, which may attract a higher price.
We are 13 years on from the establishment of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and the scrutiny functions put in place then have not really been reviewed in their totality since. We have just expanded them to cover more combined authorities and more county combined authorities. Do the Government see the regulations as an opportunity to review the effectiveness of overview and scrutiny to ensure that the relevant checks and balances are in place, as more and more is devolved down to local level? The public rightly expect that, with more taxpayer’s money—public money—involved, the checks and balances will be robust and fit for purpose. I would welcome a response on that.
My final point is more about the long-established principle of new burdens, which ensures that, whenever Parliament passes new legislation that requires councils or combined authorities to do something in addition to their existing powers, the cost of that new responsibility is borne by Parliament and the Government, not the component councils. I am not saying that we need a money resolution or a proposal to give grant support to combined authorities, but we need to be careful that we do not create legislation that allows combined authorities to create overview and scrutiny, and audit, functions, if they do not have the specialist teams they need to support them properly. We all know that when local government excels in scrutiny, it is because it has a well-resourced team that enables it to do proper, deep-dive reviews and investigations, to call in expert witnesses and to really go through things. I am not seeing that provision of finance in these regulations, so I would welcome a response on that.
Labour is fully supportive of devolution. We also recognise that, the more powers we give out, the more robust the checks and balances need to be. We are concerned that 14 years of Conservative economic management, compounded by spiralling inflation and the failure to grow our economy, have hit councils hard. We are keen to ensure that locals are supported where the Government have failed. We will not expect councils to live hand to mouth, with short-term financial settlements year on year—I think we are now on our sixth single-year financial settlement, which makes it difficult for councils to plan. Labour will give councils long-term, multi-year funding settlements so that they can plan ahead, as well as the tools they need to get on with the job.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I generally support the regulations; it is important that our combined authorities are able to properly scrutinise the work that is done. However, I am worried about the roll-out and patchiness of combined authorities across the country, because it seems to be an ad hoc system: authorities can put forward a bid to the Government, and if Nero on high puts his finger in the air, it is accepted, but if Nero does not accept, I am afraid they are damned to the current local government settlement.
Sussex is a perfect example. We have put forward two devolution plans, both of which were rejected by the Department. One was a combined county authority plan—I call it the two-county plan, but the Department called it the three-county plan—including both Sussex and Surrey. For some reason, the Department still thinks that East and West Sussex are separate counties, but we are one county, even though we have two county councils, which should be abolished. We also put forward a Greater Brighton devolution plan that would have combined district authorities and turned them into unitary authorities. That was also rejected, because the Department was, at the time, insistent on a particular model of directly elected Mayors, which Conservatives and Labour across Sussex felt would not be appropriate for the diversity of Sussex. However, we did want to work better and co-operatively.
I know that the Department has been more flexible about the new devolution deals, but it is time that it put forward a clearer set—a smorgasbord, if you will—of options that councils can go for, including the powers that they are allowed to draw down and the financial resources that go with it. The Department should be much clearer on those powers and therefore on the scrutiny. At the moment, we are giving scrutiny powers—I am trying to make sure that I speak on the motion—but we are not necessarily as clear as we could be on how devolution powers are to be given in a clear and formulaic way. I advocate that, in Sussex, we be allowed back round the table to have those discussions, which could be to the advantage of all.
We also need to look at the funding for these areas. We need longer-term funding deals that include a proper integration of NHS and social care. We have seen that in Manchester, but it has not been afforded to other devolution deals. Without a hold on the purse strings, any scrutiny will be just a nice piece of paper that does not change the policies. It is time that we looked at a proper devolution deal with some tax-raising powers. If it is good enough for London and good enough for Wales, it is good enough for the rest of the country.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton and for Brighton, Kemptown.
The speech from the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown sounded like a reprise of “I like potato and you like potahto”. Maybe we should have a musical duet at some point: he says “ad hoc” and I say “iterative, responsive and organic”. I think that we have been perfectly sensible in not having a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach, but in responding with full rigour in terms of the scrutiny of proposals for grassroots-authored changes to the local government landscape. That is probably the right way to go, on balance, because it allows us to work with the grain of local communities and their local elected representatives, rather than having some one-size-fits-all impost.
The hon. Members’ point is well made, however. There will come a time—I am not entirely convinced that the time is now, but it is probably fast coming—for what hon. Members on both Front Benches agree is an overdue and much-needed review of the funding formula, along with broader discussions about how local government is funded and the powers and responsibilities that it enjoys. One needs to review the new landscape—two-tier, unitary, county and unitary combined, devo deals, elected Mayors and so on—to ensure that the taxpayer is always securing best value for money and that the decision making is as simple as it can be and as transparent as it needs to be. There is a piece of work that I see clearly enveloped within the debate, which I am sure will come in the next Parliament, about how we fund local government.
Devo deals per se fall under the ministerial responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), so I will ensure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown are brought to his attention. I am sure that if my hon. Friend sees fit, he will engage in correspondence. Maybe unusually for the hon. Gentleman, who sometimes has a reputation in this place for making a cheeky-chappy sort of point, he has made a sensible point and has made it well. His question deserves additional thought; I do not hold the portfolio or the corporate knowledge to respond to it in the detail that it deserves, but I will ensure that that happens.
To turn to the questions from the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, allowances for co-opted members and the rate of pay for councillors are within the discretion of each local authority. The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we are at a transition stage. A lot of our councils are now multimillion-pound businesses. Are we still right to think of them as a sort of receptacle of the voluntary sector? If we want serving in local government to have a broad attractiveness, the whole area of remuneration must be taken into account to ensure that the scale of the challenge is attractive to people who may consider standing for election to local government.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I do not want to detain the Committee with a long digression on local government finance, but does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as remuneration for time, it might be an attractive incentive for councillors if the Treasury allowed them to retain some of the money they save through efficiencies, or that they attract through higher growth, and to put it back into local services? That would provide a strong incentive to attract great leaders—not for personal remuneration, but for the ability to do a great job.
Simon Hoare
I have huge sympathy for my hon. Friend. I think we will not be able to deal with these issues, and we will miss the most golden of opportunities, if, when we arrive at that position—and it will be in the next Parliament—we do not do so on a cross-party basis. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is probably bored of hearing me say that I am absolutely convinced of the considerable and overwhelming merit of that approach. I say that because some of the delivery of new formulas and so on will extend beyond three years or the narrow confines of a five-year Parliament, which would not enable anyone to do anything particularly big, bold or challenging.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton spoke about the merit of multi-year settlements, and I agree. That is a compelling and clear argument. It is helpful to councils and, as is often neglected—although not by the hon. Gentleman, I am sure—it allows those in our voluntary sector far greater certainty with regard to recruitment and planning if they can be certain that their commissioned fee will last for two or three years, rather than just a 12-month cycle. By definition, we will probably not attract the best people if all we say is, “You start on the 1st, and then you are on notice, because we don’t know if we will be able to renew your contract next time.” Those of us with direct local government experience know full well that, without the expertise and efficacy of our voluntary and charity sector, our communities would be very much the poorer.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk ties in very well with those made by the hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton and for Brighton, Kemptown. Within the conversation about how the funding model for local government is changed and evolved to meet the times, nothing should be off the table. It is a window of opportunity to recalibrate the future of local government and its relationship with the centre, which should sustain it in a practical way, not for a hand-to-mouth two or three-year spending settlement period, but for 10, 15 or 20 years. I see considerable merit in that in terms of value for the public purse and the quality and reliability of delivery of public service.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton asked some specific questions. Yes, overview and scrutiny committees can call in. I certainly anticipate that scrutiny would cover trading companies and JVs. Yes, they can instigate best value reviews, and where local authorities have identified a lacuna of expertise, the recruitment of lay members to provide expert advice in certain areas—sometimes on a very bespoke basis, sometimes on a more permanent, standing basis—should be encouraged. I do not see any inhibitor in these regulations to allowing authorities to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new burdens. This instrument is a tidying-up exercise. All authorities expect that they will have an element of scrutiny and audit. I do not see that qualifying as yet, if at all, as new burdens, but we will keep it under review. If we are able to invest to save, and to drive better-quality service more efficiently through the audit and scrutiny process, it would be a rather foolish Minister who set his face against delivering that. We see this not as a new burden, but as a continuation of an accepted task, and an important one.
I hope that that has answered the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk and Opposition Members. If it has not, I apologise, and I am sure that they can drop me a note. I am grateful for the support of the Labour party. I am also grateful to my friend, the hon. Member for North Tyneside, whose telephone provided both the noise of Skippy the kangaroo and, when the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was speaking, one that sounded a little bit like a Muscovy duck. We are grateful to her, and I look forward to serving with her on another Committee for even more Percy Edwards-type noises.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Draft Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The draft order will make changes to UK legislation arising from the establishment of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research in Wales, which I will hereafter refer to as the commission, under powers in the Senedd’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022. The commission will be the regulatory body responsible for the funding, oversight and regulation of tertiary education and research in Wales. The 2022 Act also provides for the dissolution of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the existing regulatory body for higher education in Wales, which I will hereafter refer to as HEFCW. The Welsh Government have announced that the commission will become operational in August 2024 and that HEFCW will be dissolved at the same time. The order’s amendments to various pieces of UK legislation, many of which replace references to HEFCW with references to the commission, are therefore needed in advance of that change taking effect.
Article 2 of the draft order amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 so that members of the commission in receipt of remuneration will be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons, in the same way that members of HEFCW are currently. Article 3 replaces a reference to HEFCW and the Welsh Ministers with a reference to the commission in section 82 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which makes provision about the assessment of maintaining academic standards in higher education institutions in Scotland and Wales.
Article 4 amends schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which lists public authorities for the purposes of that Act. Once it comes into force, the 2022 Senedd Act will repeal section 62 of the Further and Higher Education Act. Section 62 is referred to in schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act in order to define institutions in the Welsh higher education sector within the scope of the 2000 Act. Article 4 replaces that cross-reference with an equivalent definition, which will ensure that there is no material change to the institutions in the Welsh higher education sector subject to the 2000 Act.
Article 4 also amends part VI of schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act by adding the commission to the list of public authorities for the purposes of that Act, and removing the reference to HEFCW from the list. Article 5 amends section 32 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which makes provision about monitoring the performance of further and higher education bodies in discharging their duty to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. In line with section 32 of the 2015 Act, the Home Secretary has delegated that monitoring function to HEFCW in relation to higher and further education in Wales. Our amendment will ensure that, once HEFCW is dissolved, that function can be delegated to the commission in the same way. Finally, article 6 updates the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to ensure that the commission can enter into joint working arrangements with education and research bodies across the UK, including UK Research and Innovation and the Office for Students, as HEFCW can currently.
I welcome the establishment of the commission and hope it will have a positive impact on the tertiary education and research sector in Wales. In particular, I am pleased that the draft order will support collaboration and joint working between the commission and its counterparts in other UK nations, and the continuous improvement of the education and research sector in Wales and more widely across the UK. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will not detain the Committee long, especially after the high excitement of Welsh questions earlier. This straightforward statutory instrument, laid as a consequence, as the Secretary of State said, of the passage of the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 in the Senedd, will replace references in reserved UK legislation to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales with references to the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research. It will also make technical amendments in relation to provisions being repealed as a consequence of the Act.
The Act formed part of the delivery of the Welsh Labour manifesto commitment on tertiary education. Although this is of interest to no one other than myself, my father spent his career in tertiary education in Gwent, in Pontypool College. The Act renews the 30-year-old system that predates devolution, under which tertiary education is currently organised and funded. When the commission becomes operational on 1 August, it will, for the first time, take a coherent and system-wide view of tertiary education, bringing under one roof the funding, oversight, quality and regulation of higher and further education, local authority maintained schools, sixth forms, apprenticeships, and adult and community learning, as well as other responsibilities for research and innovation.
In introducing these changes, the Welsh Government are implementing the main recommendations of the independent Hazelkorn review, which noted the confusion and complexity of the sector in Wales and the lack of system-wide strategic view and collaboration, as well as the incoherent learner pathways. I am pleased to confirm that the architect of many of the marketised reforms to tertiary education in England, the former Minister for Universities, Jo Johnson, similarly backed a
“joined-up system of regulation and funding for all post-16 education”
in England, deriding what he called a
“bewildering array of regulatory and funding bodies”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1813.]
After the Secretary of State’s attempted tour de force at Welsh questions—some little problems with Wrexham there—I am sure he will acknowledge that Welsh Labour is leading the way in this legislation.
Labour Governments invest in young people’s futures. Combined with the Welsh Government’s young person’s guarantee of education, training or work for all 16 to 24-year-olds, the new system will create the conditions for a highly skilled society with equality of opportunity and a civic mission at its heart. Its strategic duties will also include contributing to a sustainable and innovative economy, which is crucial for a UK Labour Government to deliver their plan to make Wales a green energy superpower, investing in the industries and jobs of the future.
This statutory instrument makes only a few minor and technical legislative amendments, so Labour has no reason to divide the Committee. However, I would ask the Minister to check with his officials whether the Department has notified the Welsh Government that the order has been laid. It is my understanding that that did not happen on this occasion, and it would be good to know that the issue will be taken forward and that people will check that the Welsh Government are notified.
David T. C. Davies
I thank the hon. Member for Newport East for her valuable contribution to the debate. I am 99% certain that the Welsh Government were advised about the order, and I am getting nods from officials. I think that the Welsh Government actually offered to send officials along to take questions. If I am incorrect, I will write to the hon. Lady.
As I said, the order provides for a number of consequential changes to UK law, which are necessary ahead of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research becoming operational in August. To respond to the hon. Lady’s points, it is of course always a pleasure to help the Welsh Labour Government implement their manifesto commitments.
In reference to the hon. Lady’s father, he did indeed have a distinguished career in education in Wales. It was a pleasure to meet him 20 years ago when I was in the Senedd—in fact, I think we collaborated to save a community theatre. I know he did a lot to support the arts for young people in Monmouthshire, and he was well respected by everyone who knew him.
I thank everyone for the productive manner in which the debate has been carried out and for the way in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together in preparing the order, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The regulations introduce new measures that will support trustees and sponsoring employers of defined-benefit occupational pension schemes to plan and manage their scheme’s funding over the longer term. The regulations will require trustees to send a statement of the scheme’s funding and investment strategy to the Pensions Regulator, alongside the three-yearly actuarial valuations already required. This will articulate the trustees’ approach to long-term planning and risk management.
The regulations will work with the regulator’s revised funding code of practice, aiming to strike a fair and lasting balance between providing security for members of defined-benefit schemes and affordability for the sponsoring employer.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The explanatory memorandum states on page 7:
“There were concerns that the new regime would result in a disproportionate governance burden for small schemes”.
Does the Minister intend to address that concern?
Paul Maynard
My right hon. Friend makes the very fair point, which I have always been conscious of in this brief, that small schemes may occasionally get out-shouted by some of the larger schemes. Alongside the Pensions Regulator, we have engaged extensively not just with industry but with the professional bodies that are often more involved in the running of smaller schemes. I am confident we have struck the right balance between providing the clarity and assistance that trustees of smaller schemes need, and the interests of members in ensuring that they get the benefits that are due to them. It has been quite a long process to come up with this particular set of schemes and, in my view, we have struck the right balance.
As many will know, DB schemes have around £1.4 trillion of assets under management. In a world where most DB schemes are closed and maturing, it is more important than ever that sponsors and trustees work together, are clear how their promises will be met, and agree how to manage the funding and investment decisions involved. These regulations will support them to do that.
DB funding levels have indeed improved in recent years. It is important that schemes take advantage of the opportunities that that brings, and crystal-clear funding standards enable that. This package of measures aligns with the Government’s policy on investing in productive finance and the consultation on options for defined-benefit schemes.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
As somebody who has run pension fund money, I have a few concerns. One is the administrative concern raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, but this could also smack of the approach, “I’m from central office—nothing to be concerned about”—[Interruption.]
The Chair
The Minister was making a speech, but Mr John Baron was intervening. If it is convenient for him to continue his intervention, that would be appropriate.
Mr Baron
Thank you, Dame Maria. I fully understand where the Government are coming from on these measures, but what assurance can the Minister give that the Pensions Regulator, if and when it intervenes, is suitably sighted of investment risk, so that it understands the pension scheme and its funding liabilities, and whether or not it has low funding capability, so that it will be a help rather than a hindrance?
Paul Maynard
I am grateful for that intervention. The Pensions Regulator is expert in regulating, but more than that, it recruits investment consultants, experts in covenants, and experts in risk management. It reaches out to the wider community—to not just those who run pension schemes, but those who manage the process from beginning to end. Having met with the regulator on many occasions, I am confident that it has the necessary skillset to implement its own funding guidance and ensure that it is adhered to by scheme trustees.
As I was saying as my hon. Friend intervened, DB funding levels have improved in recent years. It is important that schemes take advantage of the opportunities that brings, and crystal-clear funding standards enable that. This package of measures aligns with the Government’s policy on investing in productive finance, and the consultation on options for DB schemes. We want to encourage schemes to get the most from their assets through more productive investments, while at the same time ensuring that scheme members can be confident that they will receive the benefits that they have been promised. We know that most DB schemes are well-managed and properly funded, and that the vast majority of members will receive the promised pension.
Good practice is not universal. Some schemes still take inappropriate levels of risk. There remain around 27% of schemes, on a technical-provisions basis, that have a deficit that will need to be repaired. The regulations embrace good practice and build on the existing funding regime for DB schemes by providing clearer funding standards, which will ensure, as far as possible, that schemes are properly funded over the long term.
The regulations set out the details for the scheme funding provisions in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, the details for the funding and investment strategy, and how important metrics, such as maturity, covenant strength and low dependency, must be determined. Schemes will be required to have a funding and investment strategy that sets out the way pension benefits will be paid over the long term. That could be through buying out with an insurer, entering a super-fund, or running on with employer support.
As they were originally drafted, the regulations would have meant that one component of the reforms—recovery plans—would come into effect from April and not September. Having identified that, and to avoid potential confusion and additional administrative requirements for the small number of schemes affected, we withdrew the regulations and re-laid this revised version.
I am pleased by the positive response to the regulations from our stakeholders, and I am confident that the regulations will support schemes and sponsoring employers to make long-term plans so that their members get the retirement income that they have contributed towards and rightly expect.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Maria.
The regulations will place additional duties on the trustees of defined-benefit pension schemes to help ensure good practice. As the Minister pointed out, the vast majority of those schemes are already well run by dedicated trustees who want to do right by their members, but we know that that is not universal and we support measures to ensure that people’s money is well looked after.
The defined-benefit pensions sector is an evolving industry. As has been highlighted, the last significant legislation relating to it dates back to 2004-05, a time when many defined-benefit schemes were open. The landscape has changed significantly, and it is vital that regulation keeps up. For instance, research shows that many large schemes are yet to set long-term objectives. The requirements in the regulations should, I hope, help to fix that.
Turning to the consultation, I am aware that, while many stakeholders were supportive of the objectives of the regulations, concerns have been raised about the extra administrative burden that they may incur. I am also concerned that underfunding could be a risk to scheme members and pension protection funds, and I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that point. Will he outline what discussions he has had with the Pensions Regulator on its implementation of the flexibility that it may well be awarded? Could we please have more guidance on what exactly will be required from each DB scheme?
We will not oppose the regulations and we hope that they are successful in promoting good practice across the sector. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the changes, and I look forward to his answers about extra guidance for affected schemes and to the questions that I have just raised.
Mr Baron
I will keep my comments very brief, for the benefit of the Committee. I seek clarification. It is not just the admin cost of these measures that concerns some of us. I am pleased that the Minister responded about the investment expertise that he believes the Pension Regulator will ensure is present whenever it intervenes, but there is a clause in the explanatory memorandum that concerns me slightly. Paragraph 7.1 states:
“Rather than eliminate risk from the system, the changes aim to support trustees in planning for the long-term and managing risk effectively—balancing the protection of member benefits with the sustainability of the employer.”
That makes sense, except that the sustainability of the employer can fluctuate depending on the economic cycle and individual circumstances. If we take that at face value, we could have a situation where the company’s fortunes are fluctuating and therefore to maintain the balance, as mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, the investment strategy has to fluctuate as well. That is not the best basis on which to take forward a long-term investment strategy. Will the Minister put my mind at rest that that will not be a problem for companies or, more importantly, those who hope to benefit from the pension over time?
Paul Maynard
I thank the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough—and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay for their contributions.
I will do my best to reassure my hon. Friend. I fear he has greater expertise than me in this matter, so I may not succeed, but I am sure he will let me know. To his specific point, the funding risks taken by schemes need to be supportable by the employer. They are required to address any deficit that emerges if risks materialise. When we say “employer covenant”, we are really referring to the strength of that covenant—the financial ability to plug a gap should it occur.
The key objective of the reforms is to provide clearer and more enforceable funding standards. The regulations will define the strength of the employer covenant and set out the principles for how that is to be assessed. They will then set out a further principle for how to determine scheme liabilities. The level of risk that can be taken depends on the strength of the employer covenant and the maturity of the scheme. The regulations will require schemes, as a minimum, to have sufficient funds to have a low dependency on their sponsoring employer by the time they are significantly mature to meet the scheme’s future pension promises. That means that, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, further employer contributions will not be expected.
Mr Baron
This will be my last intervention. I take on board what the Minister has said, but he still has not directly answered the bit of my question about the fluctuating fortunes of a company. I appreciate that pension schemes going forward will be funded on a low-dependency funding basis and should be fully funded from the registered date. But what assurance can he give that, if the fortunes of the company fluctuate markedly, and if the trustees are going to meet the obligations according to the explanatory memorandum, they will not find themselves in a situation where they have to continually adjust the investment risk profile of the portfolio they are overseeing to ensure that they maintain that balance during what could be difficult economic times?
Paul Maynard
I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that we have seen volatility in pension schemes over recent years. Many DB schemes are now funded to surplus, to a much greater extent than has hitherto been the case, but I recognise that that will not always be in the case. Let me try to go down one level further in terms of what the regulations will prescribe in the hope of reassuring him. If I do not reassure him, I will happily invite him to the Department for a thorough going-over with officials, but let me do my best first.
The regulations are subject to the principle that the funding and investment risks taken by a scheme before the relevant date must be supportable by the employer. The relevant date is the date on which the scheme is expected to reach significant maturity. Less mature schemes, such as open schemes, can support more risk because there is more time to adjust any funding shortfalls that may emerge if the risks are realised.
The regulations amend the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Funding) Regulations 2005. They require trustees and managers to follow the principle that when determining recovery plans, the period for the recovery must be set with reference to what the employer can reasonably afford. The regulations will also make it clear that when determining an appropriate recovery plan, the trustees and managers must take into account any impact on the sustainable growth of the employer.
What I draw from that, and what I hope my hon. Friend will draw from it, is that should a DB scheme find itself facing a deficit that was not anticipated, both the trustees and the managers of the scheme will have the flexibility to determine the appropriate recovery plan, and that any variation within a short period of time can be accommodated by the fund. Over a longer period, the reference date that they start their planning from should enable longer-term volatility—the ups and downs that we naturally see across time—to be smoothed out. If that does not answer my hon. Friend’s question, he can grab me at the end and he will get a speedy invite.
On the point the shadow Minister made on some of the issues around guidance more generally, we have tried to ensure that the regulations are flexible and will work well for all schemes. It is important to make the point that even mature schemes can invest in a wide range of assets as long as they reach low dependency at significant maturity. We also want the regulations to allow open schemes to take account of new entrants and future accrual when determining when the scheme will reach significant maturity. To make long-term planning and implementation easier and to avoid unnecessary administrative burden, we have given the Pensions Regulator the flexibility to ask for less detailed information depending on the circumstances of a particular scheme.
We can expect the revised DB funding code of practice to be laid before Parliament this summer, in time to come into effect from September 2024 in line with the regulations. Around the same time as the Pensions Regulator publishes its code, the regulator will also publish the fast-track parameters and the updated impact assessments. Later in the summer, the Pensions Regulator will consult on the covenant guidance. There is a whole suite of things coming up over the course of the summer, all intended to be in force ready for 22 September, when the regulations will become effective.
We are making sure, in collaboration with the regulator and the industry, that any burden is proportionate to the outcomes and reflects the particular circumstances of any individual scheme. Fundamentally, as the shadow Minister agreed, the regulations will guarantee that member benefits are protected, but that we enable defined-benefit schemes to grow as best they can to meet any funding shortfall that may occur. On that basis, I hope that I have answered everyone’s questions, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill
Wednesday 13th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 View all High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2024 - (13 Mar 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room and I have selected the amendments in the name of the Member in charge of the Bill, Jack Brereton.
Clause 1
Designation of High Streets
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after first “street” insert
“, or a network of streets,”.
This amendment enables a local authority to designate a network of streets in its area as a single high street for the purposes of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from “one” to end of line 8 and insert
“designation under this section that is in force in its area”.
This amendment removes the upper limit of 3 streets on what a local authority may designate as high streets for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after first “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “is” insert
“, or (as the case may be) all of the streets comprising the network of streets are,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert “or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after first “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “its importance” and insert
“the importance of the street or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from “Before” to “under” and insert “making a designation”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, after “day” insert
“, in relation to a local authority,”.
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “designation day” for the purposes of clause 1(2) of the Bill in the event that clause 1 is not commenced on a single day.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“in relation to that authority”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “and its importance” and insert
“or (as the case may be) all of the streets comprising the network of streets and the importance of the street or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert “or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, after first “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out
“designated the street as a high street”
and insert
“made the designation under section 1”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “must,” insert “at least once”.
This amendment makes clear that a local authority may carry out more than one review of an improvement plan within each 5-year review period if it considers it appropriate to do so.
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, after “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, after “1,” insert
“or
(b) comprised in a network of streets that is designated as a high street under section 1,”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 15, after “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 16, after “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Clause 3 stand part.
Clauses 4 to 6 stand part.
Jack Brereton
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank all colleagues for serving on the Committee and I am delighted that the Bill has reached this stage. I thank all those who have supported my Bill. In particular, I thank the Minister and the Department for the fantastic support I have received from them; they helped to make this possible. I also thank all the House staff who have supported me in progressing my Bill. I thank the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the British Property Federation, Power to Change and representatives from the Local Government Association Conservative group for meeting me to discuss my Bill and for their support.
Our high streets matter. They matter to our constituents and they matter to us as parliamentarians representing high streets up and down the country. According to data commissioned by Historic England, 73% of people said that their local high street is important to them, but 54% feel pessimistic about its future. The condition of our high streets is intrinsically linked to the success and condition of the communities that surround them. My Bill is about helping to secure the successful future we all want to see for our high streets.
Clause 1 sets out powers for local authorities to designate high streets in their area based on their importance to the local economy and their use. That should be done in consultation with key stakeholders and individuals from the area. This reflects that the fact that in those areas where there is effective partnership, with councils, communities, and high street businesses and property owners coming together, significant progress can be achieved. We are starting to see early signs of what can be achieved in towns such as Longton in my constituency thanks to the work of organisations such as Urban Wilderness and the owners of the Longton Exchange precinct, but we need to go much further to see the transformation necessary to attract new uses to fill those empty spaces and help our high streets to thrive again.
Recognising the success of our high streets will inevitably require change. That is why clause 2 details the need for high street improvement plans that would set out the condition of the high street and its importance to the local economy as well as proposals for its preservation and enhancement.
Sadly, many of our high streets have struggled as a result of the move online and out of town, and the pandemic. We cannot allow that decline to continue. These measures are about helping our high streets to turn the corner and be transformed for the future. They build on measures already introduced by the Government through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, and powers already in place through a number of other provisions.
Why is it important? Many of these powers, such as the use of section 215 enforcement notices for buildings in a poor state, are not being used to best effect. Despite Government guidance illustrating the important role that such powers can play in achieving wider regeneration of an area, my own local authority, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, did not issue a single 215 notice last year.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is about getting local authorities to use the powers that are now in place to get on top of the challenges and to take action on the issues that are important to high street users or that bring in new uses. By putting in place a duty to create high street improvement action plans, we can help bring forward the change and better co-ordination that are needed. Ensuring full engagement and consultation with key high street and town centre stakeholders is essential, so the development of action plans must bring people and organisations together to deliver the transformation that many of our high streets need.
Clause 3 sets out the due regard that local authorities should give to improvement plans as part of the planning process, but is designed so as not to be restrictive. It is certainly not about preventing positive new development on our high streets that might not have been considered when an improvement plan was put together. Instead, it is about ensuring that consideration is given to the context of improvement plans in determining permission for new development. The granting of planning permission, as per the normal planning process, will remain entirely at the discretion of local authorities. Additionally, improvement plans are not designed to duplicate existing planning policies, such as local or neighbourhood plans, but should complement them.
Clause 4 sets out the powers necessary for the Secretary of State to make regulations that may be necessary for the implementation of clauses 1 to 3. Clause 5 provides definitions for the interpretation of the Bill, and clause 6 focuses on the extent and commencement of the Bill.
As Members will be aware, I have tabled several amendments, mainly to tidy up and improve the clarity of the legislation. A number of them are also consequential on one another. I will focus on a few of them. First, amendment 1 and its related amendments would allow for a network of streets to be considered as the high street area, rather than just a single street. That picks up on the points made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) about ensuring that the definition of “high street” reflects that that is often made up of a collection of streets, rather than just a single street.
Amendment 2 would address some of the concerns expressed about the upper limit on the number of designations a local authority may make. Originally, it was intended that there should be a minimum of one and a maximum of three. That was done to ensure the number of designations did not become too onerous on local authorities. However, following discussions with the Department and a number of colleagues and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, who is serving with us on the Committee today, it has been agreed that we should remove the upper limit and give discretion to local authorities. Importantly, that reflects the fact that we have local authorities of varying sizes, with some having many more high streets than others.
Amendment 9 is merely a clarifying amendment for the meaning of “designation day”. Finally, amendment 17 is about the frequency of reviews of designated high street improvement plans. While the Bill sets out that reviews must take place within a five-year period, amendment 17 makes clear that local authorities can review plans more frequently if they choose to and make any necessary or desirable changes sooner than five years.
To conclude, my Bill will make a significant difference in helping to support our high streets to thrive again, helping to stem the tide of decline that has all too frequently been experienced across the country by putting a duty on local authorities to define high streets, assess their condition and devise improvement plans to help them to improve and to provide the focus needed to succeed. That will influence the effective partnership and co-ordinated action that will help our high streets to attract in new uses, to improve the condition of our high street buildings and to encourage more people to visit and support our local high streets so that they thrive again.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I rise to agree with much of what has already been said. I truly appreciate and support the aims of this Bill and in particular clause 2 and the duty on local authorities to create high street improvement plans. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for bringing the Bill forward.
I have been an MP for two years now, and our high street in Erdington is one of the main concerns of my local residents. High streets are the beating heart of our communities, linking people to every part of their lives, whether that is walking to school, buying their shopping, going to church, visiting a friend, going to the pub or going out for a cup of coffee. But up and down the country, high streets are frankly in a sorry state. That is why I strongly support clause 2(1)(b), which places a duty on local authorities to create a plan that preserves and enhances our streets.
I have lived in Erdington for 36 years. I remember raising my family in a town where everything we needed and everyone we wanted to see could be found on the high street. I have received a number of comments from constituents who have contacted me since the beginning of the year.
“After seeing details on the Next-door app regarding an 87 year old man being badly beaten up and personal items taken from him outside Erdington library, I’m really really scared to get myself out. I would not be able to protect myself like this gentleman did.”
Another comment said:
“As a constituent and a person who works in the area it’s concerning to see the frequency of anti-social behaviour increasing in Erdington high street. Most recently, we’ve had the window smashed in Costa, physical assault and robbery near the library and physical assault outside WHSmith.”
Another said:
“I know Erdington missed out on the levelling up grant twice and I know there was a very ambitious regeneration plan drawn up and Erdington is not alone with this decline in the issues of the high street, but surely something can be done to regenerate it and stop the decline.”
It is a real shame that Erdington has twice been rejected from the levelling-up fund, despite two great bids that would have transformed our area.
It would be remiss of me not to highlight how worrying it is that the Bill is needed in the first place. Local people need to see improvements in their high streets, but, with eight local authorities having issued a section 114 notice since 2018, and the £4 billion hole in council funding arrangements for the next year, I worry that by designating this power and responsibility to local authorities, we are letting the Government off on failing to properly fund the regeneration of our high streets.
I recognise that the Bill comes with a money resolution, but I want to place on record my view that the money to preserve and enhance the high streets that are at the heart of our communities should not have come from a private Member’s Bill, but from the Government themselves. Let me end on a positive and bipartisan note by sincerely thanking the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for bringing forward this Bill. I hope it will serve to improve our high streets for generations to come.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
It is an absolute delight to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) for bringing forward this excellent Bill. The key word in the title of the Bill is “improvement” and, in my view, that is something we need on all levels. I see this more as a matrix that would bring forward all sorts of improvements to a town centre.
I will talk about Loughborough and Shepshed, because I have two towns in my constituency. Shepshed has recently received a large amount of section 106 funding, which has helped to improve the centre of the town, where there is new paving. That took a while to deliver, but it has lifted the town centre enormously, and Brook Street looks absolutely beautiful now.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I rise to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, my constituency neighbour, on this outstanding Bill. As he and I well know, Stoke-on-Trent is a classic example of why amendment 1 is so important, because it allows for more than three streets to be designated. Stoke-on-Trent is a city of six towns, each with its own identity and network of streets, and it is hugely important that the symbiotic relationship of streets is recognised by designating networks.
We all know that regenerating one street often attracts retailers to it, and the neighbouring street may then suffer and see shops closing. It is very important that we look at our high streets and our town and city centres holistically, and the Bill goes a long way towards doing that. I am absolutely supportive and I congratulate my hon. Friend again.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South on bringing forward this important piece of legislation. My constituency has a number of towns, and I am pleased to be speaking in the 125th anniversary year of the creation of the county borough of Leigh, which was granted its own town charter in 1899. We hope that in future Leigh will once again have its own borough.
The towns in my constituency have benefited from various schemes that the Government have introduced. I think particularly of the Tyldesley heritage action zone, which has regenerated Elliott Street in Tyldesley and has been held up nationally as an example of how to work with the community in developing and regenerating some of our northern post-industrial towns.
At the other end of the constituency is Golborne, where we need to do a lot of work on redesignating the high street because we are submitting our final bid to reopen Golborne station, which is just off the high street, and I suspect there will be much more footfall there in years to come. Hopefully the station will be up and running by 2027, meaning that Golborne will once again see life to it after more than 60 years without a railway station.
Leigh itself has benefited from the levelling-up fund. We have had £11.4 million, although sadly not the full £20 million because, as the Minister knows, Wigan Council failed to bid for the full amount, leaving £8.6 million on the table that is not benefiting one of the poorest towns in the north of England. However, I am pleased to say that we have had the full £20 million of future towns funding, which I very much welcome. There is a lot of work to do in Leigh, including the regeneration of Leigh market just off Bradshawgate, Bradshawgate itself and the town square outside the town hall. Many of those schemes have cross-party support and the support of a number of community organisations such as Leigh Township Forum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough mentioned the post-internet town centre. I pay tribute to Leigh Means Business, which is one of the community organisations that have been trying to drive regeneration in the town of Leigh and which has come up with a website—I hesitate to call it an app, because I am not that technologically minded—that lists all the shops in the town centre and what they provide to local residents. It will come up on people’s phones if they are in a local shop and they have downloaded it—or that is the intention—and say, “Are you also looking for this thing?”, and link to something in a nearby shop that provides that good or service. I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend said.
The designation of a high street is important. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the town of Atherton—I currently have the bottom half of it in my constituency, and after the boundary review I will hopefully have the entirety of it—which in many ways led the way in our borough on small town high street regeneration. That has been done in a very piecemeal manner by the independent councillors, with the support of local businesses, but in many ways what we saw in Atherton was a beta test for what worked and what did not.
My constituency has a number of towns that all benefit from the regeneration that the Government have brought forward, and the various moneys associated with that, but I welcome the deliberate designation of specific streets within town centres as high streets. It is important to target that funding carefully and designate zones for specific actions. With that, I feel I have made my point and will sit down, but I strongly welcome the measures in the Bill.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I warmly welcome the Bill, but may I make one point? With everything that we ever talk about in this place, it normally comes down to the Government or the state doing everything. If people do not have pride in their area, if people do not care about their fellow citizens or the town or place where they live, and if people cannot behave in a way that is not yobbish or does not intimidate other people, this will not work. I find it incredibly tiresome to hear people throwing numbers up in the air and saying, “If we invest this amount of money, then suddenly a miracle will happen and everything will be fine.” It will not. People have to behave and they have to have pride in their area and care about it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South does and that that underpins this Bill.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Charles. I had not indicated that I wished to speak, but I want to add a couple of things.
I very much welcome the Bill and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for bringing it forward. Dudley high street and those in a couple of peripheral areas in my constituency, Sedgley and Gornal, suffer from what most high streets have suffered from since the advent of the tsunami that the digital age brought with it. I suspect that each and every one of us in this room is guilty of contributing, in our own small way, to their gradual demise, which was unfortunately super-accelerated by covid, when everybody was asked to operate from home and therefore through their laptops, and everything was delivered to our doorsteps.
I do think that local councils need help—they have needed it for some time—but I also think that local government should be doing more anyway. In Dudley I have argued for a masterplan for our town centre, which is effectively what the Bill asks for. If it becomes the adopted policy of local councils, they can decide how many pound shops, charity shops and fish and chip shops they want on their high street. As things stand, if a particular building has a particular planning designation, there could be 20 of each—I might mention Turkish barber shops that do not have many Turkish people in them.
This is a good Bill and I warmly support it, for the reasons I have given. It strikes the right balance between what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North indicated—let us take back some pride in our high streets—and some of the extra motivation that I think local government needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
Thank you, Sir Charles. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful for the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South on this issue, and I am pleased to speak in the Committee on this important Bill.
As my hon. Friend laid out, the Bill will ensure that local authorities effectively use their powers to support high streets in their areas to perform well, and to drive improvements where that is not the case. This will be a valuable tool in enabling us to meet our ambition of creating thriving high streets and town centres. I am sure it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I support all the amendments he has tabled. They are largely technical in nature, but they are important to ensure that the Bill has its intended effect of strengthening high streets across the country.
Clause 1 introduces a new duty on local authorities to designate high streets in their area, meaning that local authorities will need to carefully consider and identify streets of specific economic, social and cultural importance in their area that may require particular attention to ensure that they are performing well.
Amendments 1 and 3 to 8 will ensure that local authorities are able to designate a network of streets in their area, as well as a single street or part of a street, as a high street for the purposes of the Bill. That will ensure that high streets made up of a crossroads or a flow of streets are not overlooked or misrepresented. While technical in nature, the amendments are important to the Bill’s effectiveness and reflective of how people view their high street. They will mean that streets such as Nottingham Road, between Loughborough town centre and the station, could be brought into scope. In my constituency, they will mean that the High Street in Redcar can also include Station Road and Queen Street.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister for his kind words and for some of the comments that he made. I agree with him entirely that the amendments are very much about ensuring that the Bill is reflective of how people feel about their high streets, and that it is complementary to much of the work the Government are doing already to support the revival of our high streets.
I thank all Committee members for serving and supporting me with my Bill, and for their comments. I will go through some of them. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned the importance of the high street to her constituency and community, and some of the issues with crime and antisocial behaviour that she has seen in her community. I am absolutely attuned to those issues, having seen similar things in many of the communities and high streets in my area. The impact that has on people being able to go to high streets and feel safe is particularly important. Some of the Government’s work on the safer streets fund is particularly important to reference, because it can make a massive difference in trying to make areas feel more safe. In Longton in my constituency, we have secured considerable amounts of money through the safer streets fund to invest in safety improvements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough talked about the impacts of online and the internet, which have had such a significant effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North also mentioned that. It is essential that we take action to address some of those issues and bring people together to create a destination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough described, not just for traditional retail but for entertainment. She also mentioned the important role of BIDs, which will be integral and play a key role in parts of this legislation. They will be one of the key partners that can help to formulate the improvement plans.
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for her points, particularly about amendments 1 and 2 and why they are important for our city, which is because we are a city made up of six towns, all with unique identities. She also mentioned the importance of not causing displacement from one part of a high street to another, which is why the amendments are so important.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, who made some extremely important points about his constituency and the benefits that heritage action zones have brought. I have seen that in my own constituency and across Stoke-on-Trent. They are particularly important and can play a significant role, because many of our high streets contain so much important heritage. My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of cross-party working and the work he has done on Golborne station. I recall that that was reflected by the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, who complimented my hon. Friend on the incredible and instrumental work he has done to progress that project. Even the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester thinks he is doing a fantastic job.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who mentioned the importance of the Bill being about not just local authorities. He is absolutely right: this is about not just local authorities. Although they can perform a co-ordinating role, it is about trying to get businesses, communities, property owners and all those who care deeply about their high streets to be involved in the process and to formulate plans.
Finally, I want to reflect further on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North. He illustrated the importance of having a masterplan for an area to the rebirth and rejuvenation of our high streets. It can play such an integral role. I hope the efforts we are making through this Bill will help to deliver that. Without further ado, I ask the Committee to accept amendment 1.
The Chair
We now need an outbreak, or a continuation, of good humour and patience from the Committee, because, funnily enough, we have a lot to get through.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from “one” to end of line 8 and insert
“designation under this section that is in force in its area”.
This amendment removes the upper limit of 3 streets on what a local authority may designate as high streets for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after first “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “is” insert
“, or (as the case may be) all of the streets comprising the network of streets are,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert “or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after first “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “its importance” and insert
“the importance of the street or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from “Before” to “under” and insert “making a designation”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, after “day” insert
“, in relation to a local authority,”.
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “designation day” for the purposes of clause 1(2) of the Bill in the event that clause 1 is not commenced on a single day.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“in relation to that authority”.—(Jack Brereton.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 9.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
High street improvement plans
Amendments made: 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “and its importance” and insert
“or (as the case may be) all of the streets comprising the network of streets and the importance of the street or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert “or streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, after first “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out
“designated the street as a high street”
and insert
“made the designation under section 1”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “must,” insert “at least once”.
This amendment makes clear that a local authority may carry out more than one review of an improvement plan within each 5-year review period if it considers it appropriate to do so.
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, after “street” insert “or network of streets”.—(Jack Brereton.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Planning functions: duty to have regard to high street improvement plans
Amendments made: 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, after “1,” insert “or
(b) comprised in a network of streets that is designated as a high street under section 1,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 15, after “street” insert “or network of streets”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 16, after “street” insert “or network of streets”.—(Jack Brereton.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 1.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Jack Brereton
I thank you, Sir Charles, and everybody who has taken part in the debate today. It has been a fantastic and wide-ranging debate, and I hope that we can move forward as swiftly as possible, with Report stage on 26 April.
Jacob Young
I would like to thank the officials.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Planning Reform
(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform of the planning system.
The housing shortage that we face in this country is the great crisis facing the United Kingdom today. Since 1973, house prices have more than tripled in real terms, with the average house price today reaching over £284,000. Just in the last 20 years, the ratio of house prices to incomes has more than doubled. The average household faces paying more than seven times their annual income for a home to call their own; in 2000, it was three times their income. For the average individual, the statistics are even starker. The housing shortage means that the overwhelming majority of our young people simply cannot hope to afford a home. It means that people cannot move to be closer to work or to their family, and that people are stuck in cramped, unfit and often unsafe homes throughout the country.
The housing shortfall is strangling our economy and choking off the growth that we need to restore our economic fortunes. Put simply, the housing shortage is making us all much, much poorer. The only solution to this crisis is to build more homes. According to a Centre for Cities report, the UK has a shortfall of well over 4 million homes. Even with the Government’s target of building 300,000 homes a year, that deficit would take at least half a century to fill, and sadly we are nowhere near that number.
Evidence from around the world shows the power of home building to make lives better for people right across the income spectrum. In 2016, Auckland liberalised its planning system and precipitated a boom in housing construction, which resulted in significantly lower rents six years later. Across the Atlantic in the United States, new buildings attracting more affluent residents have freed up the homes that they used to live in, lowering demand and rents for homes across the entire market, even at lower income levels. A Swedish study found that the benefits of new housing are evenly distributed among residents from different income groups.
How we actually get to building more homes is clearly far from simple, but what we do know is that the planning system is not fit for purpose, so how do we reform it to get where we need to go? There is growing consensus across the House that the planning system is holding us back from delivering the homes that are needed. Fixing our outdated, top-down and restrictive processes must now be a priority for both main parties and, I hope, all parties in the House. But how do we do that?
The first and most important thing is to make home building more popular with the British public. When asked, people across the country broadly support the idea of new housing. The 2020 British social attitudes survey found that 58% of Britons want to see more home building, with only 25% inherently opposed, and yet, as colleagues will know, specific house building projects in one’s own constituency always seem to attract far more opposition. Some of that opposition is unthinking, knee-jerk nimbyism, and we should have no time for it, but not all of it is unreasonable. Despite the benefits of new homes, existing residents see very little immediate benefit when development comes to their home area. They do, however, experience real costs, ranging from crowded roads to overburdened GP surgeries, and sometimes they witness low-quality homes being unceremoniously dumped on the edge of their town.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I do not disagree with a number of my right hon. Friend’s points. One concern that people have at a local level in Suffolk, and more generally, about additional house building is that it very rarely comes with the additional infrastructure that he mentions. More houses are built, but more pressure is put on the local infrastructure—on schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and the roads. What does he suggest as a mechanism to change that, so that if people accept more house building, they actually get the infrastructure that is needed?
Sir Simon Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have seen that in my constituency, where a new GP surgery in Nunthorpe, a suburb in the south of the town, has changed people’s attitudes to new homes coming in. However, we need to institutionalise that sort of offer to residents. The planning system must deliver a worthwhile settlement that gives residents a reason to say yes to extra homes.
The Government have legislated for one important potential solution: community land auctions. CLAs allow local government to see a substantial share of the profits from new development, enabling local authorities to capture the uplift in value that comes from planning permission being granted. The value of agricultural land can rise by up to 80 or 100 times. The council getting their fair share of that increase in the underlying land value allows them to deliver benefits to local people, which they can then spend on the new infrastructure that my hon. Friend rightly says is essential to make new developments viable. Residents then get to see their fair share of the upside, too, while the country sees homes unlocked with more community support. I hope to see the Government press on and make the most of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 by getting trials of CLAs moving quickly, because they have huge potential.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
“Decisions and policies are most trusted when the people making them are representatives of the people affected by them”—that quote is from a civil service training manual. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need to ensure that localism remains in the planning process?
Sir Simon Clarke
I think localism as a principle of good Government is very important. I am a strong believer in the mayoral devolution of the kind that the Government have introduced in recent years. I will come to the hon. Lady’s question about how we can best address the balance between local and national Government. Local government can be a very good thing, but it can also become an obstacle to actually building homes anywhere at all, which is something we need to try to balance.
Sir Simon Clarke
Of course—it would not be a debate without the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Planning rules on the mainland are slightly different from those in Northern Ireland. The principles that he refers to are important, so I sympathise with his comments, particularly about the time that it takes for a planning application to be granted fully. I have a close relationship in my area with the local planners through the council and also with numerous developers and builders, because there is a tradition of building in my constituency. The frustration about timescales is understood. Does he agree that one of the most pivotal ways in which we could reform our planning system is by ensuring that councils are funded adequately to ensure a more robust planning approval process? Councils have a key role to play; let us make sure they are part of it.
Sir Simon Clarke
I totally agree. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: councils need to have the planning departments to process the applications, and too often, as we know, good planners are poached by consultancies when they are needed in our local government system. The answer is to allow local authorities to capture more of the upside financially from new homes being built so that they can fund the requisite staff and expertise— I see the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) nodding—to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman refers to.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The right hon. Member will be aware that there is a Government-imposed cap on how much money local councils can charge big developers when they put in applications. That led to a situation in St Albans where the constituents of a district were subsidising big developers to the tune of £3 million a year. The Government have increased but not scrapped the cap, and councils can still not recoup the full cost of processing an application. Would he support a measure to scrap the cap altogether?
Sir Simon Clarke
That is a very reasonable question. I would need to look at the detail of the policy to see whether simply raising the cap further or scrapping it would be the best solution to the problem. Do I accept entirely that we need to make sure that councils are not cross-subsidising the cost of development, but are incentivised to welcome good development? Yes, I do.
Another important piece of the puzzle is leasehold reform, and I thought that the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety spoke brilliantly on that issue in the House last week. Although nominally owners, the relationship between leaseholders and freeholders often resembles that of a landlord and tenant. There is too little protection against drastically increased service charges and few incentives for freeholders to properly maintain a building.
Secure and fair property rights are a core Conservative principle. The Government are making great strides with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. It is absolutely right that we fix the balance and ensure that once people get on the property ladder, their home is truly theirs. I encourage the Government to go further, and I welcome the commonhold system whereby leaseholders all own a share of the common development, but we must address the fact that leasehold reform is vital.
We should also address the fact that new homes in Britain are too often of low quality. Poor-quality designs leave new and existing residents feeling that new homes are too often nothing more than ugly boxes, and we should look seriously at how design codes can ameliorate that. For example, we could allow individual streets or areas to vote on a design code for new housing. Establishing pre-set and pre-approved design rules ahead of time would allow everyone on the street to see a large share of the potential uplift, while significantly increasing the number of homes built. Design codes could also increase housing through densification, rather than relying on outward suburban sprawl, which would also reduce the potential dependence on cars and would allow more green space to be preserved.
As we have discussed, even if the public are on board, local authorities need to be as well. Councils are vulnerable to particularly vocal activism, even if it is a minority opinion among residents. Any reform will need to empower councils to take long-term decisions in the interests of their area, giving them the tools to get the right outcome from new development and incentivising them to say yes where appropriate, while ensuring that a few bad apples cannot shirk their responsibility to allow more homes. As you know, Mr Betts, our councils really matter.
I recently had reason to feel considerable frustration at my own planning authority in Redcar and Cleveland, when the chair of that authority made the baffling decision to delay the consideration of the proposed new British Steel electric arc furnace at Redcar. That reflects the power that councils can have for good or for ill, and we certainly want to ensure that their natural incentives are to welcome investment.
To do that, we need to ensure that development plans are brought up to date everywhere. These plans allow builders a measure of certainty when deciding where to construct new homes, but they are often not up to date. Unfortunately, the consequences under current law if an authority does not have an up-to-date plan are often trivial.
One possible remedy comes from California—the so-called “builder’s remedy”. Under that policy, if an area fails to plan for enough homes, it must approve any housing project that contains at least 20% low-income or 100% middle-income housing. That solution can be extremely effective. A few weeks of the builder’s remedy in Santa Monica resulted in more affordable housing being approved than there had been in the previous seven years. I certainly favour restoring a presumption in favour of development wherever an up-to-date local plan is not in place.
Sarah Dyke
I would not be a Somerset representative if I did not mention the phosphate levels on the Somerset levels and moors Ramsar catchment area, caused by phosphates entering the water system. It is stymieing the building of new homes in parts of Somerset, so we no longer have that five-year housing land supply. That means that the local plans are effectively suspended, and the local planning authority is forced to approve inappropriate new housing development in areas where it would normally be refused. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in those circumstances, the local planning authority should be afforded better protection from the five-year housing land supply requirements?
Sir Simon Clarke
I confess that I think the issues surrounding phosphate and nutrient neutrality need to be addressed—indeed, I commented on this with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) this morning—by looking at the underlying causes of the problems and allowing mitigation measures to be put in place and counted forward so that homes can still be built where appropriate. That would mean that we do not end up in the situation where authorities either commission homes where they are not appropriate or do not commission homes at all. We need to resolve the Gordian knot of nutrient neutrality, because it is an irrational obstacle to building new homes. It is something that we have created through policy, and we need to resolve it through policy.
The Government have rightly said that development plans ought to prioritise building in cities. I welcome the exciting plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for major new developments in east London and Cambridge. That is precisely the kind of visionary development that we need and should welcome, and I think it will command broad support. Demand is obviously highest for homes close to city centres, where jobs are located, so those new homes often contribute disproportionately to economic growth. Building in cities also means that less money is required to support the infrastructure needs of new residents, and it is environmentally friendlier. Urban, dense communities inherently encourage lower usage of energy, because living in a smaller space means there is less to heat, and living in an apartment building means that there is natural insulation from other units, and so on.
Estate regeneration is also a win-win way to add more housing in cities and to deliver social justice. Too often, our post-war council estates are impractical and prohibitively expensive to rehabilitate. However, redeveloping an estate with new private housing that helps to cross-subsidise a wider improvement and redevelopment of social housing can result in a plan to deliver a really good outcome for all residents. Allowing tenants to vote on these plans would ensure that their rights were protected while providing new and renovated homes of a kind that is desperately needed.
However, although the brownfield-first policy is sensible, a brownfield-only policy cannot be, and no debate on planning would be complete without my referring to the completely uncontroversial subject of the green belt. The green belt was intended to prevent sprawl, but I would submit that it has done the opposite. Today’s green belt, which is three times larger than London itself, causes a leapfrog effect, whereby individuals wanting to live in London end up settling in distant commuter towns instead, which increases transportation and climate costs. Parts of the green belt—the disused car parks, the petrol stations and the dreary wastelands that make up what the right hon. and learned Leader of the Opposition rightly calls “the grey belt”—are far from the natural paradise that some would have us believe.
The green belt, in truth, has the best spin doctors around, encouraging a widespread misapprehension that it is all beautiful green land, when in fact 11% of the UK’s total brownfield land lies within the green belt.
Daisy Cooper
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us do not give or accept that portrayal of the green belt? Some of us are very clear that there are brownfield sites and there are developed sites within the green belt, and most of our concern is about the undeveloped green-belt sites that have natural habitats.
Sir Simon Clarke
In response to the hon. Lady’s point, I am strongly in favour of making sure that we can better enshrine the protections for the areas of genuine natural beauty and community amenity, rather than having a reductive debate that simply suggests that the entirety of the green belt is an untouchable verdant paradise, because it is not all like the front of a box of Yorkshire Tea; we all know that it is a mixed area of land. It was a crude line on a map drawn in the late 1940s, with good intention but adverse consequences today, and I would argue that we need to have a much more sophisticated debate about what is and is not tradeable in that context.
My own party needs to stop pretending that all of the green belt is valuable, which is bad policy and bad politics, and it is time that we started to look at releasing some grey-belt land to provide us with the housing that we desperately need. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who is a fellow PricedOut parliamentary champion and a friend, has done excellent work in pointing out that some of the worst areas of blight in her constituency are characterised as being green belt.
Of course, even where the planning system does allow developers to bring forward new homes, regulations that are too strict can still strangle supply and push up prices. Year after year, conditions and requirements are added at every level, driving up costs without necessarily delivering high quality. Perhaps the most egregious example of this comes from the Mayor of London’s London plan, where the dual aspect rules require every flat to have external windows on multiple walls. Clearly, indeed inherently, that is desirable, but it comes with a cost, and if it restricts the number of homes built, that intervention needs to be balanced against the wider social imperative of creating homes where they are most needed.
Minimum space standards are another example. While young people in other countries live on their own in flats of between 20 and 25 square metres, in the UK they are forced to live with strangers in overcrowded houses in multiple occupation because we have banned new flats of that size. Politicians need to be honest with the public and with ourselves about the options that exist in this area. In the middle of a generation-defining supply crunch, we cannot afford these rules. People would be much better off in small, modern and affordable flats of their own than in ageing, chopped-up homes built over a hundred years ago. We need to nuance this debate.
We also need to talk about tax. Our main real estate taxes often feel to those priced out of home ownership as though they add insult to injury. Stamp duty land tax and council tax both need fundamental reform. Stamp duty, as it is currently constituted, penalises people every time they move house, meaning that some households remain in homes that are too small for them when others remain in homes that are too large for them—in both cases for too long.
Council tax is regressive and unfair, and fails to compensate local councils properly for increases in land or property value, undermining the incentive to add more housing. Given that all parties are, frankly, terrified of the effects of a revaluation politically, and given that there has not been a revaluation since I was a child of seven, we need to look at fundamental reform of local government taxation. That is a major issue—I do not deny it—but at the moment it is worsening the planning system as well as acting irrationally in terms of the tax system. I submit that both those taxes should be replaced with a proportional property tax, which would save households an average of more than £500 a year and result in up to 600,000 extra new homes over the next five years.
I hope that this morning I have highlighted some easy, sometimes controversial but generally win-win solutions that we could use to help soothe our housing crisis. In the long run, there is no substitute for real root and branch reform of our planning system. Ultimately, I favour a rules-based system along the lines set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark when he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was unfortunate that the Opposition misrepresented those plans as a “developers’ charter”. If only they had been allowed to do anything of the kind!
Housing has an impact on every facet of our lives. Rising housing costs suppress productivity, increase wealth inequality, worsen climate change and increase homelessness. People need to be together. Bringing people physically together is a social good, but people need homes to do so. This is not an abstract debate; fixing the issue is a moral priority and it also ought to be a top political priority for my own party, as it always was under Prime Ministers as different as Harold Macmillan and Margaret Thatcher. I do not know how we can make the case for popular Conservatism when in too many areas of England people cannot accumulate capital in their own lives. I certainly feel that is why major political change may be brewing in parts of the country that we have long called our heartlands.
One need only contrast the recent success of the Canadian Conservatives to see the amazing difference that embracing pro-home-ownership policies can deliver, even among the youngest voters. The UK is falling behind in the quest for higher productivity and better wages, and at the moment we are only making ourselves poorer by refusing to meet one of our most basic human needs—a place to live. The UK needs innovation, we need infrastructure and most of all we need housing. We will not get enough of it under the current system. That is why the time for talking is over.
We have made too little progress on effective planning reform over the last 14 years and it has become clear to me that politicians are not holding ourselves sufficiently accountable on the issue. That is why I am delighted to announce that PricedOut, Britain’s largest campaign for affordable news homes, will publish an index of Members of Parliament in England running for re-election, ranking their performance on housing, planning and infrastructure issues. That will serve as a guide to voters up and down the country at the next election, showing just for whom the issue is a priority. PricedOut has my support in bringing all of us in this House to account. The country deserves a more serious debate than the one we have had, and we need it soon, before lasting harm is done to another generation by our collective unwillingness to deliver the serious planning reform the country needs.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this morning, Mr Betts. This is an important debate and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) for championing this issue generally and for raising some interesting points today, many of which I agreed with.
In my constituency the average house price is about 12 times the average household income. So much of the existing housing stock is not available for anybody to live in, make a home in and raise a family or work locally. Over the last 20 years we have seen a huge explosion in the number of second homes, owned by people from away. It is nice for them that they can do that, but they do not—bless them—contribute to the local economy to the extent that those who live there full time do. More recently, we have seen a real explosion in the number of short-term lets. That in itself is not so awful; but it is awful when we see how they have gobbled up the long-term rental market to get into that situation.
We see a decline in the number of homes available for people to live locally—wherever they are originally from—set down roots and contribute to our community. Those are evaporating, and the housing stock we already have is moving into usages that do not contribute to maintaining a full-time economy. That is miserable for families that are effectively expelled from the communities in which they grew up. It is also economically stupid, with hospitality and tourism being one particular sector we can list. It is our largest employer, but 63% of hospitality and tourism businesses in Cumbria are currently operating below capacity—not meeting the demand that is there, which is criminal in a difficult economic situation like this—simply because they do not have the workforce to contribute. That has an impact on health and social care. A fifth of care jobs in Cumbria are currently unfilled. There are a number of reasons for that, but the principal one is that the incomes that are paid in social care are not enough for people to have a home anywhere near communities in the lakes and the dales, in south and central Cumbria.
The housing crisis is real, and it is particularly acute in places like mine. We need action on both what we build that is new and what we do with the existing housing stock.
I very much agree with the diagnosis of the problem by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and with some of what he said about potential remedies. I do not agree, however, that a free-market approach is the answer. Housing is not a normal market. To treat it like a normal supply-and-demand market is to misread the situation. If we have targets for additional housing, take away all planning controls, and allow people to build what and where they want, we will simply have a field day for speculators—people who buy homes not to live in, but as investments. The people who have something will get more, and people who have nothing will not get anything. We must understand that the housing market is not a normal market, and that the reason we are in this mess is in no small part down to the fact that we have treated it like a normal market. The problem is that, when it comes to the development of new housing, we have an insufficiently fettered free market.
For example, in Appleby, new houses are being proposed and are soon likely to be developed. As things stand, not a single one will be affordable. As somebody who has actively fought for new homes to be built—indeed, I have risked losing votes over it—that causes me great concern. I see estates of 100 houses being built, and perhaps 20 are affordable—although are they really affordable? Yes, the other 80 will sell—there is demand for them—but there is no need. I am happy to go into the trenches and fight for new homes to be built if they are needed, and I am even happy to be unpopular over it, but I am fed up of seeing developments that are basically a waste of bricks. They are very nice bricks, in a nice part of the country, but we do not need them. They will end up being second homes, investments or Airbnbs for somebody who does not need them.
Meanwhile, families who live locally are hanging on by their fingernails. As long-term lets are turned into Airbnbs and people are evicted, those families have to leave the area altogether, which is totally miserable. I have seen that happen right across my patch, from Kirkby Stephen and Kendal to Grange-over-Sands, Ambleside and Windermere: local families are evicted and expelled because of the move from long-term to short-term lets. When we build new homes, they have to meet those people’s needs, not the desires of people who have tons of money and live nowhere near Cumbria.
It is important that we begin to redefine what “affordable housing” actually means in planning law. Homes that are 80% of market value can count as affordable, so we could build a house just outside Kendal that is worth 500 grand, which goes for 400 grand. Well, I am sorry, but that does not help anybody—at least not anybody normal—and it does not help our local economy. Let us be clear that “affordable” should mean genuinely affordable; otherwise, we abuse the term, and it means absolutely nothing.
We need a rebirth of social housing. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland talked about Harold Macmillan, to whom we owe a massive debt for his support for the building of council housing. Whatever we call it—social rented housing or public housing—we need loads more of it. We need to build it not in the drip-drip, bottom-up way that is permitted at the moment; the Government have to act, not even as the developer of last resort, but perhaps as the developer of first resort. They need to start investing—backing local authorities and housing associations with public money, so that we build the homes we need in the places we need them. That would ensure that we have viable communities, and that families in areas such as mine can cling on—and not only cling on, but thrive and be centres of communities in the future.
The answer to the problem is not the removal of planning powers. Conversely, we need more. I am blessed to have three planning authorities in my constituency: the Yorkshire Dales, the Lake District and the other beautiful bits, not in either national park, that are covered by Westmorland and Furness Council. We have seen empirically over the years that where we are really specific and prescriptive about the housing that we need in our area, particularly in the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales, we will get planners grumbling for months and years about the fact that we will only allow affordable, social rented, shared ownership or local occupancy housing to be built. Planners will grumble, but then they will realised that this is the only game in town, so they will build. That is how things work. The problem is that the lack of certainty will often lead to more speculation and land banking, actually achieving nothing.
Generally speaking, at any given time there are a million homes with planning permission that are not built. We realise that it is not the freedom in the planning regime that is an issue; it is sometimes not being specific enough. We need some specific powers. Local authorities should be given the power to enforce 100% affordability, particularly in areas such as ours, where there is extreme pressure on rural communities.
It is commendable that the Government are now moving towards turning short-term lets into a separate category of planning use, so that we can ensure that we maintain long-term homes available for communities such as ours. However, I urge the Minister to look again at something I proposed when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was in Committee, and on the Floor of the House, which is to make the same arrangements for second homes. Second homes should also be a separate category of planning use, so that we can have a limit on the numbers that there are in any given community to protect full-time occupancy of other housing.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has just left the Chamber, said, new powers are useless without a planning department that is well resourced. Planners are important and gifted people, and we need more of them. We do not need to be in a situation where they are beleaguered and run ragged by people who know if they break the rules they can get away with it. Enforcement is absolutely vital.
If we are going to build the homes that we need—and we desperately need to—we must be tight and clear about what homes we do need. We need to ensure that we build the homes that Britain actually needs—and that our community in Cumbria actually needs—not the homes that there may be demand for, and that people will speculate over and use as personal investments and land banking. We need to provide the infrastructure first, so that there is space for those homes.
Let us think of the communities that we most serve by building new homes. I think of Hawkshead, which has a brilliant primary school, but does not have the numbers that it should because we have not built the affordable, social rented homes that the community desperately need. I am committed to working with the school, the local community and the local counsellor, Suzanne Pender, to ensure that we achieve that in the coming months and years.
When we do see development, let us also ensure that we build infrastructure. Often we will see the water company saying that it does not need to invest in any more sewage infrastructure or additional capacity, and to just go ahead and build. Because water companies are a statutory consultee, the planners have to nod that through. We should hold the water companies to greater account when it comes to planning processes, so that they are not giving a green light to something that actually needed their investment—which is why they give the green light, of course.
People need a home that they can rely on and afford, that is safe and secure, and that is theirs for years to come; and in which to raise a family, if they choose, and to work from and retire in. That is an essential building block of being part of a civilised society. Without that kind of secure home, we are robbed of our basic freedoms. Communities are based on a range of people who have those freedoms, and who live and work them out together.
Our communities in the lakes, the dales and the rest of Cumbria, as beautiful as they are, will not survive unless we support the building of new homes that are genuinely affordable and meet the needs of local people. We also need to ensure that the homes that are built are used for what they were built for, and not just investments for those who will never live there.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
In May of this year I will have completed 19 years of service as Conservative Member of Parliament representing my constituency. Reflecting on those 19 years, the current planning system and its ramifications are some of the greatest concerns for me and many of my constituents.
I want to highlight a very important infrastructure project in my constituency. As a Conservative, the thing that I am most interested in is value for money for taxpayers. We have been talking about Shrewsbury—a beautiful town in Shropshire with more listed buildings than any other town in England. Tourism is extremely important for us and is our No. 1 income generator, but Shrewsbury is a historic town built hundreds of years ago, and it is struggling to cope with the huge increase in house building and people moving into our community. We have been talking about completing the ring road around Shrewsbury for 50 years. I was approached some years ago by the late Graham Galliers, head of the Shrewsbury Business Chamber, who said to me, “The one thing you need to do as the Member of Parliament is to secure the funding to complete the ring road around Shrewsbury, because that is at the very centre of economic sustainability for your constituency.” I use my position in the House of Commons to lobby for funding for the completion of the ring road. Basically, 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock of the ring road has been missing for 50 years. Completing that part will free up the whole north- western segment of Shrewsbury, which is undeveloped, and its construction will be the catalyst for massive private-sector investment in that vacant north-western segment.
I was delighted when the then Secretary of State for Transport came to see me in February 2019—I repeat that date: February 2019—slightly more than five years ago. He came to see me in the Chamber and said, “Good news—you’ve got the funding for the north-west relief road.” That was five years ago. I live in Coton Hill in the centre of Shrewsbury, and I see the extraordinary congestion in my town. We are a small county town, but it takes over an hour to get from one end of Shrewsbury to the other because of the huge amount of congestion.
As I have said before, there is also massive construction. There is a huge flow of young professional couples leaving the Black Country and moving into Shrewsbury. Working practices are changing rapidly. Why live in Birmingham, Wolverhampton or the Black Country, when you can live in beautiful Shropshire and bring your family there and enjoy the countryside? People are starting to move to rural areas like ours and then commute intermittently to Birmingham and inner-city conurbations. That flow of people will only continue into Shrewsbury and Shropshire.
I secured the funding five years ago and, over the past five years, I have watched the ping-pong taking place between Shropshire Council—my democratically elected local Conservative council, which is elected by and accountable to local people—and the Environment Agency. Each side blames the other for the extraordinary delays taking place in trying to get this project through the planning process and for construction to start. In my frustration at what was going on, I said nothing for the first year, the second year and the third year, although I watched with increasing desperation and concern. Eventually, I said, “I can’t allow this to continue. I must intervene.”
I wrote to the new chief executive of the Environment Agency, Mr Duffy, who had previously worked as a civil servant at the Treasury. The Environment Agency shares the Home Office building right around the corner. I asked him in a polite letter whether I could meet him and bring some of my councillors and the portfolio holder for highways. Initially, I was told that he would see only me, that he refused to see my councillors. We went through a bit of an argy-bargy to ensure that, ultimately, the portfolio holder for highways and others were able to join me.
The discussions are all about the construction of a bridge over the River Severn. There is a segment of the north-west relief road where we need to build a bridge. Of course, as with many other construction projects, there is no alternative. The bridge comes relatively close to an aquifer from which drinking water is taken for the people of Shrewsbury, which is why, I am told, there are such significant delays.
I am going to say something controversial and a lot of people will disagree violently with me, but then again, that’s politics and that’s democracy. Do we need these quangos? Do we need the Environment Agency? Yes, of course we do. I see some snorting and guffawing from the Opposition Benches. We need the Environment Agency to work with us and our authorities on mitigating flooding. I chair a caucus of 38 Conservative Members of Parliament who have the River Severn flowing through their constituencies. We are working in a constructive way with the Environment Agency and the River Severn Partnership to try to lobby collectively for additional resources to tame Britain’s longest river.
I see relevance in that work, but do we need such a level of interference from an unelected, unaccountable organisation that clearly lacks transparency, to scrutinise a democratically elected council that is responsible for the people of Shrewsbury and can be thrown out by the electorate if it makes an environmental mistake? The council has hired some of the best environmental advisers and construction companies to try to build the bridge. Can we afford, as a nation, such a level of excessive engagement between the Environment Agency and a democratically elected council? I would argue that we cannot. I trust the local council with all its resources and good intentions, and with local councillors who are part of the community, who drink the water that we take from the aquifer, who are elected and accountable to the people. Can we entrust our councils to make decisions and build essential infrastructure projects for our constituents, or we do need this outside body?
What worries me more than anything else is that I secured £58 million for the road in February 2019. The end project will cost about £140 million or £150 million, and that is just my project in Shrewsbury. I think we will spend an extra £100 million on the project as a result of the massive delays. If that is being replicated across the United Kingdom, which I know it is—I have spoken to other Conservative MPs who have serious concerns about the lack of engagement from the Environment Agency—we really are creating massive additional costs that will be difficult to meet.
The lack of urgency is a concern. Mr Betts, I can show you a file 7 inches thick of my correspondence with the Environment Agency over the last five years on that one project. I am very unhappy with that, and I would like the Minister to know that I have serious concerns about the impact on taxpayers—my local, hard-working families who are paying their taxes. The lack of urgency and accountability from Mr Duffy and his officials on the matter is very disturbing indeed.
Last week, we had the positive announcement of an extra £244 million designated for transport projects in Shropshire, which we have got because High Speed 2 has been cancelled. I was a great supporter of HS2, because I was told that one of the reasons why we did not have a direct train service between Shrewsbury—the only county town in England without such a service—and London was “lack of capacity” on the network. HS2 was going to free up and build for future generations and increase that capacity. What the Victorians did was fascinating. They built not for themselves; they built for future generations. If we plant a row of trees, we are not going to benefit from the shade ourselves. We will be gone, but those who follow us will benefit from the shade. The Victorians understood that, and they built for future generations. The London metro system, which I use almost every single day, is a classic example of building for future generations.
I was very saddened that the Prime Minister ultimately decided to scrap the project, but I was also cognisant that there was no alternative, because the nimbys and people who campaigned against various aspects led to massive increases in costs. We have now benefited in Shropshire from an extra £244 million—thank you very much, Treasury. I will be spending that £244 million as quickly and as expeditiously as possible in Shropshire, but we have only got it as a result of the destruction of a major national infrastructure project by these environmentalists and nimbys.
The pendulum has swung too far away from Governments, councils and Members of Parliament—from people who are elected and responsible for delivering major essential infrastructure projects. The pendulum in our society has swung too far away from those in positions of responsibility and accountability. That pendulum has swung towards the environmentalists, the Environment Agency and the nimbys—we all have thousands of nimbys in our constituencies. We need to recalibrate this equilibrium to ensure that more power is brought back to engineers, architects, designers, planners, councils, Governments and Members of Parliament. Otherwise, we will sink—I want the Minister to remember this—into a quagmire in this country, whereby we cannot build essential infrastructure projects, and they will double, triple and quadruple in price. That is simply unacceptable, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister’s intentions are to streamline and improve the planning process so that examples like my north-west relief road do not occur in other constituencies in the future.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) for securing this debate. If I am perfectly honest, we have more in common that I thought we might. That gives me great hope, and I hope that we might continue to work together on the reforms about which we do agree.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to overhauling this broken top-down planning system. I supported amendments tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that would have given councils the powers to force land bankers to build or sell. Unfortunately, they did not go through. We also supported amendments that would have given local councils the power to regulate Airbnbs, something that is so important to my St Albans constituency. I have also been running a campaign to get the Government to scrap the cap on planning fees, as my constituents are subsidising big developers, and our planning department has been left woefully underfunded. It is really disappointing that those amendments were not accepted for the levelling-up Act.
Today, I want to focus on the failed top-down approach to setting housing targets. The Liberal Democrats have an ambition to build 380,000 homes a year, but by adopting a bottom-up approach we would ensure that they were built in the right places and were the right homes. We would require councils to start by addressing their local housing need and identifying any local constraints. The approach would include ensuring that 150,000 homes each year would be truly affordable for social rent, and I am delighted that that is supported by research from the National Housing Federation, Crisis and Heriot-Watt University.
I want to interrogate recent reforms to the national planning policy framework. I intend to challenge the Minister to clarify whether the reforms her Government announced in December have in fact been incorporated into the NPPF at all. I am sure it will come as no surprise to Members or the Minister that I take a keen interest in the proposals to update the NPPF. The Minister will know that I have tabled scores of parliamentary questions, secured debates, responded to various consultations and tabled amendments to the levelling-up Act. I have been clear that the current Government policy and the NPPF itself do nothing to solve the housing crisis. What they do is incentivise developers to destroy great swathes of precious agricultural land, natural habitat and green open spaces on the metropolitan green belt.
The root of the problem is the Government’s top-down housing targets, which are based on out-of-date population data and which councils are required to meet irrespective of any local constraints. There is no clear guidance in the new NPPF at all about whether those top-down targets or preserving undeveloped green belt space for future generations should take precedence, and that is quite confusing.
Let us look at the history of this issue. In 2015, the then Minister of State for Housing and Planning took steps to address it in a written ministerial statement. On permitting development on the green belt, he said that unmet need is
“unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the green belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 95WS.]
There was a very clear instruction in that statement to local planning authorities and to the planning inspector that the protection of undeveloped green belt should be given more weight than meeting housing targets.
However, that ministerial statement was made nine years ago. There have been 12 Conservative Housing Ministers since then, and unfortunately not one of them has seen fit to incorporate that statement and that principle into the NPPF. That remarkable state of affairs has meant that the Planning Inspectorate has never been able to give that statement any weight at all when deciding on planning appeals. Nor has the Planning Inspectorate had the ability to apply that principle to its examination of local plans—in fact, the planning inspector said as much in a planning appeal heard for an application in Colney Heath in my constituency that has resulted in the wrong homes being built in the wrong place. As a consequence, many councils are not able to meet the top-down housing targets without surrendering undeveloped green belt land for development.
The Minister will know that in St Albans, we unfortunately have the oldest adopted local plan in England. Two previous drafts developed under Conservative administrations were rejected by the Planning Inspectorate. Since 2019, the Liberal Democrat administration has prioritised the local plan process. It has been put under the auspices of the leader of the council, and in recent months the district council has made significant progress by completing a call for sites, producing a draft local plan and completing a regulation 18 consultation.
The Government’s top-down approach has a real impact in St Albans, and that is the situation our district council now faces. The Government’s standard method produces a top-down target of approximately 14,000 homes that need to be built within the St Albans district. The Government’s approach does not allow for any reduction in that top-down target, even though we have been given a Government-imposed strategic rail freight interchange the size of 3.5 million square metres of green belt, equivalent to 490 football pitches, which could instead have potentially accommodated between 2,500 and 3,000 homes. Following the district council’s call for sites and the regulation 18 consultation, it is thought that only around 5,000 homes can be accommodated on brownfield or grey belt sites. Around 9,000 homes will need to be built on previously undeveloped green belt.
The district council is working at pace to put a plan in place, but the combined failure of the Government to embed that written ministerial statement into the NPPF and of previous administrations in St Albans to develop a local plan now means that the council is currently unable to defend itself and its communities from inappropriate, speculative development. As a result, developers have mostly won their cases by appealing to the Planning Inspectorate.
St Albans City and District Council remains unable to prevent the wrong houses from being built in the wrong place. For example, just in the last year 2022-23, most of the housing built in our district was four, five or six-bedroom executive housing, not the three-bedroom homes that we desperately need. After months of delay, hopes were raised that an updated national planning policy framework would finally address the scandal of local plans being required to meet those centrally produced, top-down housing targets, as produced by the so-called standard method. In St Albans, our council leader took the Secretary of State’s promises at face value, saying that that if the new national planning policy framework is changed, such that the protection of underdeveloped metropolitan green belt takes precedence over top-down targets, our draft local plan will change as well. But it seems to me that the changes to the NPPF actually make the situation worse.
The Secretary of State said on 19 December 2023 that the changes provide
“clearer protection for the green belt…In summary, the new NPPF will: facilitate flexibility for local authorities in relation to local housing need; clarify a local lock on any changes to green-belt boundaries…the Government are ensuring it is clear there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green-belt boundaries if this would be the only way to meet housing need.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 97-99WS.]
The Secretary of State said all of that, but I have read the new national planning policy framework and I am afraid that it says absolutely no such thing. Rather than softening the need to meet those top-down targets, the changes to the NPPF actually strengthen and reinforce the requirement of councils and their communities to meet them.
There are at least five examples that I can find. Paragraph 15 changes the requirement from “addressing” the targets to “meeting” them, which is a significant change in firming up the requirement. Paragraph 60 adds a new requirement that the overall aim of any local plan
“should be to meet as much of an area’s identified housing need as possible”.
Again, that is a significant firming up of meeting that top-down target. Paragraph 61 codifies the Government’s previous position that
“the standard method is an advisory starting-point”,
but the meaning of “advisory” is not clarified. It is widely understood in the planning sector that “advisory” does not mean that it is merely a suggestion, but it is actually a warning. It is a warning that, if that target is not met, the planning inspector will almost certainly throw out and fail any local plan that does not meet that target.
In paragraph 61, the accompanying footnote 25 restricts the circumstances that might permit deviation from the standard method to extreme examples, such as
“islands with no land bridge”.
It appears to deliberately stay silent on undeveloped green belt constraints. Paragraph 145 had, in the version that the Government put out for consultation, the strongest and clearest indication that
“Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered, if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”.
Inexplicably to those who expected that revision to strengthen green belt protection, that change was scrapped altogether in the final version of the NPPF. Indeed, there is not one single statement anywhere in the NPPF—none at all—that indicates to the planning authorities or the planning inspector that more weight can or should be given to protect undeveloped green belt over top-down housing targets.
Planning professionals agree that, at best, the new NPPF brings nothing to green belt communities. It was reported that one very senior and respected planning barrister, who attended a Hertfordshire Infrastructure & Development Board meeting on 29 February, described the Government’s changes as nothing more than “window dressing”. St Albans City and District Council has proceeded with its local plan-making, in compliance with the previous version of the NPPF, in the expectation that the Government would honour their promise to give councils more power and the ability to protect parts of undeveloped green-belt land. It is clear that those promises have now been broken.
I am told that the Liberal Democrat administration has followed the advice of the Local Government Association, the Planning Advisory Service, the Planning Inspectorate, its own KC and external experts acting as critical friends. In effect, they have all told the council the same thing: “You must meet this top-down target or you are at risk of your local plan being failed.”
Without a local plan, communities in St Albans will continue to end up with our natural environment bulldozed over for inappropriate and oversized executive homes, with no way for the council to require developers to provide the three-bed family homes that our district so desperately needs. Indeed, the draft local plan that the district council has prepared has identified that more than 50% of the new homes in the area have to be three-bedroomed homes. Yet at the moment we have no way of ensuring that developers build them. There is now a limited window of opportunity for the Government to intervene and clarify whether St Albans District Council can move forward with the draft local plan that revises the top-down housing targets downwards, in recognition of local constraints.
To sum up, I have three questions for the Minister. Will the Minister confirm today whether the Government-imposed strategic rail-freight interchange, the size of 490 football pitches, which prevents the building of 2,500 to 3,000 homes, can be taken into account? Secondly, on 9 January, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), responded to my written question on the issue of the green belt to say that the Government would consider whether updates were needed to planning practice guidance in due course. Can the Minister today confirm whether that consideration has been completed and, if not, when it will be? My third and final question is will the Government urgently provide updated guidance for local authorities and the planning inspector, making it clear that the protection of undeveloped green-belt sites—not the grey belt—can be considered an exceptional circumstance, which justifies an alternative approach to assessing housing need?
Since the new year, I have tabled 12 written questions asking for clarity on these issues. So far, not one of them has received a satisfactory response. Instead, I have been redirected back to the very statements on which I am trying to seek clarification. My constituents deserve straightforward answers on the Government’s intentions. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to provide substantive responses today.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Benchers. For Labour, Matthew Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) on securing this important debate, and commend him for the characteristic clarity with which he set out his position in opening it.
I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for their contributions. I did not agree with all their points, for reasons I may come to, but I certainly agree with the need to focus the planning system on prioritising genuinely affordable social rented homes, an issue the right hon. Gentleman knows I have spoken about at length, not least in the many weeks of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee stage. I also agree with the importance of properly resourcing individual local planning departments, as was mentioned, which is a huge challenge at present.
I think the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland would accept that on most matters there is a profound political gulf between us. Yet, such is the mess that the Government have got themselves into with national planning policy, we have found common cause on a number of specific issues related to it. The most obvious point of agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Front Benchers—although not the hon. Member for St Albans, I am sad to say—is on the need for enforceable housing targets.
The right hon. Gentleman recognises, as we do, that to get anywhere near the Government’s target of 300,000 homes a year, let alone the annual level of housing supply that England actually requires, we must have mandatory targets that bite on individual local planning authorities. As a result of the revised NPPF, published on 19 December last year, it is an unassailable fact that we no longer have such targets in England. Although it is correct to say that a small number of the initial proposals in the NPFF consultation were ultimately abandoned—for example, damaging proposed revisions to the tests of soundness—many others were implemented. Those include the softening of land supply and delivery test provisions, the emphasis on locally prepared plans providing for “sufficient housing only”, and the listing of various local characteristics that can now be used to justify a deviation from the standard method for assessing local housing need. As a result, the standard method is now explicitly only an advisory starting point.
The predictable result, as Ministers surely knew would be the case when they made the concessions in question to the so-called planning concern group of Tory Back Benchers in December 2022, is that a growing number of councils with local plans at an advanced stage of development, more often than not in areas of high unmet need, are scrambling to reverse ferret and take advantage of the freedom the revised NPPF provides to plan for less housing than their nominal local targets imply. The Government’s manifesto commitment to 300,000 homes a year thus remains alive, but in name only. It is abandoned in practice but not formally abolished, and no amount of protestations to the contrary by Ministers will alter that fact.
As the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has rightly argued in the past, the decision to overhaul national planning policy in this way was, as he said, “disastrous”. It was, as we know, a decision made not in the national interest, but as a grubby concession to Government Back Benchers who were threatening to derail the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. It was nothing less than a woeful abdication of responsibility, and it must be undone. A Labour Government will act decisively and early to ensure that it is undone so that we once again have a planning system geared towards meeting housing need in full—that is absolutely a red line for us.
Where we respectfully part ways with the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is on the issue of whether the post-war discretionary planning system is beyond redemption. As the right hon. Gentleman made clear in his remarks, he firmly believes that it is, and that it should be replaced by a zonal planning system of the kind proposed by the “Planning for the Future” White Paper published in 2020, but eventually abandoned. We might notice a trend here in the face of Back Bench pressure from the Government Benches.
We take a different view; while we do not dispute that after a decade of piecemeal and inept tinkering the planning system the Government are presiding over is faltering on almost all fronts, we believe that introducing an entirely new system is not the answer. Instead, we believe a discrete number of targeted changes to the existing system, coupled with decisive action to ensure that every element of it functions optimally, will ensure we significantly boost housing supply and deliver 1.5 million homes over the course of the next Parliament.
As I do not have an abundance of time, I will give just one example of the kinds of changes we believe are necessary to get Britain building at the scale required. It is a change that I think might solve some of the problems that the hon. Member for St Albans identified in relation to St Albans. There is no way to meet housing need in England without planning for growth on a larger than local scale. However this Government, for reasons I suspect are more ideological than practical, are now presiding over a planning system that lacks any effective sub-regional frameworks for cross-boundary planning.
The limitations of the duty to co-operate were well understood, but it at least imposed a requirement on local authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to develop strategic planning policies where needed. Its repeal last year through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, coupled with the fact that no replacement has been brought forward, leaves us with no meaningful process for planning strategically across boundaries to meet unmet housing need, given the inherent flaws of voluntary spatial development strategies.
Indeed, the Government have now even removed from the NPPF the requirement to help neighbouring authorities accommodate development in instances where they cannot meet their areas’ objectively assessed needs. If we are to overcome housing delivery challenges around towns and cities with tightly drawn administrative boundaries we must have an effective mechanism for cross- boundary strategic planning, and a Labour Government will introduce one.
That is just one example of the kind of planning reform we believe is necessary; others include finally getting serious about boosting local plan coverage. It is appalling that we have a local plan-led system where nearly three quarters of local plans are now not up to date—that cannot be allowed to continue. Another example is reintroducing a strategic approach to green-belt release, rather than the haphazard free-for-all we have had for the past 14 years.
The important point is that we should be focused on bold evolution of the planning system in England, not a complete dismantling of it. Not least because the painstaking creation of an entirely new system, after four years of planning policy turbulence and uncertainty in the wake of the 2020 White Paper, would almost certainly paralyse housing delivery and further exacerbate the sharp decline in house building that is now under way. Reform of the planning system, rather than a revolutionary reconstruction of it, is what is needed, so Labour remains committed to an ambitious yet pragmatic and achievable overhaul of the current system, and much-needed policy certainty and stability once that overhaul is complete.
As much as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland might wish otherwise, it is patently clear that the Government have not only squandered the opportunity to make the planning system work as needed but, in caving in to the demands of their Back Benchers 15 months ago, have actively made things worse, as the planning application statistics released last week make clear. We need a general election so that they can make way for a Labour Government who will do what is necessary to tackle the housing crisis and boost economic growth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate and serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) for securing today’s important debate and for his very eloquent presentation. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for his impassioned pleas on behalf of his constituency, and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper).
Let me make it very clear that this Government are absolutely committed to modernising our planning system and building more homes. In our manifesto, we had a commitment to build 1 million more houses, and we are on track to do that during this Parliament. We have an advisory target of 300,000. We have not achieved that, but—let me make this very clear—the highest four years of house building in the past 30 years have been since 2018, so our performance is strong.
Daisy Cooper
The Minister indicated that the new NPPF uses the word “advisory”—the Government have always used that word. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said that is a softening of the targets, but the advice that my local council has received from the Local Government Association, the Planning Advisory Service, the Planning Inspectorate and its own KC is that “advisory” is a warning that, if that number is not met, the local plan will likely get failed. Will the Minister please commit to provide further guidance on what the Government intend by the word “advisory”?
Felicity Buchan
We are very clear that we want 300,000 more homes to be built in England every year. What we have said is that we have an advisory starting point for each local authority. To answer the question that the hon. Lady posed earlier, the framework sets out clearly that, although changes to green belt boundaries may be made where exceptional circumstances are evidenced and justified, there is no firm requirement to do so. If there are exceptional circumstances, there can be development on the green belt.
Felicity Buchan
I really want to make some progress.
We are absolutely committed to modernising our planning system. We introduced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to enable radical improvements in the way planning works. There are numerous measures in the Act, and future support in policy and regulation, that will modernise the system, making it more efficient, effective and accessible. Local leaders will have greater powers and the necessary tools to regenerate town centres and bring land and property into productive use. That will support growth, the delivery of quality homes and environmental improvements.
Underpinning that, the Government believe decisions about development should be driven by sensible local decision making, supported by digital tools to make engagement easier and bring the current system into the 21st century. More local plans must be in place—I agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on that point—to deliver the homes and infrastructure that people need, in the places where they want to live and work. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has set out his ambition for planning performance. It is now up to those who make the planning system work—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—to expedite delivery. We are committed to building more homes, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably, and we must build homes in the places where people want to live and work.
The Opposition parties talk a very good game, but the proof is all in the delivery. I am a London MP, and it really saddens me that under the Labour Mayor of London, in 2022, London had the worst delivery of new houses of any area in the country. We can compare that with the west midlands under the Conservative Andy Street: he actually exceeded his targets.
Daniel Kawczynski
I speak as an immigrant to this country—we left communist Poland in 1978—but does the Minister agree with me that getting levels of immigration down to sustainable levels will also help in the crisis affecting housing, because a lot of the pressure on the housing stock is coming from people coming from overseas to the United Kingdom?
Felicity Buchan
We have to acknowledge that a lot of the settlement in the UK in the course of the last two years has been exceptional, whether it is by Hongkongers or Ukrainians. I agree with my hon. Friend on the arithmetic. If we have big levels of inward migration, we need the housing to house the inward migration, so I agree with him on the basis of the arithmetic—absolutely.
Matthew Pennycook
I am glad to hear the Minister recommit to the Government’s housing target of 300,000 homes a year. She says that the Government are committed to delivering that. Does it not concern the Minister that in the wake of the changes to the NPPF, councils across England—I think an example would be North Somerset—are using the exceptional circumstances test in the revised NPPF to determine lower housing targets than are defined through the Government’s standard method? That is to say that the NPPF will result in less housing than the standard method implies and that there is no way the Government can now meet their 300,000 homes a year target on that basis. She surely must recognise that.
Felicity Buchan
We have been very clear that our target is 300,000, but we want local communities to buy into it. It is very much an objective. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has laid out very clearly, we need the new housing, and that is why Government are committed.
Daniel Kawczynski
Will the Minister join me in challenging the Labour party? It claims that it will come in on a white horse and resolve all of this. In practice, we have seen how the socialist Mayor of London has failed to build houses. Will my hon. Friend join me in expressing a reservation about the Labour party’s silence about that rather than questioning the failure of its Mayor of London to provide essential homes?
Felicity Buchan
I agree 100%. The proof is in the delivery, and London in 2022 was the worst performing region for housing delivery. An independent review has been conducted of London housing delivery, and that makes it absolutely clear that the Mayor has failed to deliver housing. It is running at 15,000 new homes per year, according to his own plan, but the actual need in London is multiples of that. That is clear underdelivery, but let me make some progress.
Felicity Buchan
I will take this as a final intervention, because I do need to get quite a few things on the record.
Daisy Cooper
I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Recent interventions have shown that there is a huge amount of confusion and contradiction about what the changes to the NPPF actually mean. A cynic could say that the Government are saying one thing and doing another, but I think that it is really important for communities around the country that we have clarity. Will the Minister please commit to the Government actually producing further guidance on what they mean by “exceptional circumstances” in relation to the standard method, and will she please commit— I ask again—to providing further guidance on the definition of the word “advisory”?
Felicity Buchan
I think I have been very clear in what I have said about the green belt. The green belt should be protected except for in exceptional circumstances, as has been set out.
Let me make some progress. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will speed up the planning process, delivering a faster and more efficient system, and cut out unnecessary and costly delays. It will ensure that local plans are shorter, more visual and map-based, and built on open and standardised data. They will be concise and focused on locally important matters, with repetition of policies across plans eliminated. New mandatory gateway assessments will reduce the time spent examining plans. To ensure that plans are prepared more quickly and kept up to date on matters including housing supply, there will be a 13-month preparation timeframe and a requirement for councils to commence plan updates every five years.
To respond to the hon. Member for St Albans, I must put it on the record that St Albans has one of the oldest plans in the country. It has been designated. To be honest, I do not know how the Liberal Democrats can stand up and say they have a housing target of 380,000 a year when they object to every single development on the ground. I just do not get it.
Let me move on. We have had quite a lot of talk about nutrient neutrality. I must say that I was hugely disappointed that the Opposition in the House of Lords blocked the Government amendments in the 2023 Act that would have made a targeted and specific change to the law, so that there was absolute clarity that housing development could proceed in areas currently affected by nutrient neutrality. That was done at a cost of 100,000 new homes. It is unacceptable to talk the talk and not to deliver, and the Opposition did not deliver in the House of Lords.
Felicity Buchan
No; I have made it quite clear that there are points I want to put on the record.
The Government continue to work to unlock housing in catchments affected by nutrient neutrality. To address pollution at the source, the 2023 Act created a new duty on water companies in designated catchments to ensure that wastewater treatment works serving a population equivalent to over 2,000 meet specified nutrient removal standards. Competent authorities are then required to consider that this standard will be met by the upgrade date for the purposes of habitats regulations assessments, significantly reducing the mitigation burden on development.
We are also boosting the supply of mitigation by making £110 million available through the local nutrient mitigation fund, to help planning authorities in affected areas to deliver tens of thousands more homes before the end of the decade. Funding will be recycled locally until nutrient mitigation is no longer needed, at which point it will be used for measures to help restore the relevant habitat sites. The fund has already allocated £57 million to eight local authorities, and round 2 of the fund opened for expressions of interest last week. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), who is no longer in her place, raised nutrient neutrality. I want to make it clear that Somerset was allocated £9.6 million.
Building on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we consulted on a range of proposed changes to national planning policy to support our objective of a planning system that delivers the new homes we need, while taking account of important areas’ assets or local characteristics that should be protected or respected. We have revised the NPPF to be clearer about the importance of planning for homes and other development that our communities need. The revised NPPF provides clearer protection for the green belt, clarity about how future housing supply should be assessed in plans, and certainty on the responsibility of urban authorities to play their full part in meeting housing needs.
We have removed the need to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply requirement where plans are up to date, providing local authorities with yet another strong incentive to agree a local plan, giving communities more of a say on development and allowing more homes to be built. To make sure that we maximise the potential of brownfield sites, we are consulting on strong new measures to boost house building while protecting the green belt. Under those plans, planning authorities are instructed to be more flexible in applying policies that halt house building on previously developed land, permitted development rights are extended, and the planning authorities in England’s 20 largest towns and cities will be subject to a brownfield presumption when they fail to deliver.
The Government are clear that having plans in place is the best way to deliver development in the interests of local communities, and the revised framework creates clear incentives for authorities to get their local plans in place. Alongside that, the Government remain on track to meet our manifesto commitment to deliver 1 million homes over this Parliament. We have announced a £10 billion investment in housing supply since the start of this Parliament, to support bringing forward land for development, creating the infrastructure and enabling the market to deliver the homes that communities need, as well as supporting local authority planning capacity. This includes the £1 billion brownfield infrastructure and land fund, launched in July 2023, that will unlock approximately 65,000 homes and target at least 60% of funding to brownfield land.
I want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who secured this debate, time to sum up, so I will close by saying very clearly that the Government are committed to housing delivery and we are on track to modernise the planning system so that we can achieve that housing delivery.
Sir Simon Clarke
I thank the Minister for her gracious comments about giving me time to respond. This has been a very good debate and, despite the proximity of an election, a remarkably consensual one about a number of the issues that we know we need to overcome if we are to build the homes we need as a country. Clearly, there are areas of contention and big challenges that require significant political courage to be addressed.
I will briefly give credit to those who have spoken. I agreed with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the importance of allowing local planning departments to be sufficiently resourced to do their job. I have more faith than he does in the ability of the market to fix these problems, but that is probably not an unusual distinction between us.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for attending the debate. I wish him every success with bringing forward the Shrewsbury ring road—the 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock segment. Although I concentrated primarily on housing in this debate, it could equally well be extended to infrastructure. We must allow ourselves to build what we need to succeed. The Government need to address some of the obstacles that have progressively accreted and stop us from doing things that we know are in the national and often the local interest.
I welcome the ambition that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) set out for 380,000 homes a year, but that needs to be underpinned by robust methodology in terms of clear national targets. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said, local plans need to be up to date and we need to make sure that they are resourced appropriately so that they can be kept up to date. I count the shadow Minister as a friend in this place, and he is right that there are things that we need to do to give greater accountability for local authorities when it comes to their work. We obviously disagree on nutrient neutrality: I think Labour failed to put their money where their mouth has been when it comes to the importance of house building.
Finally, I thank the Minister. I welcome the fact that we are on track for 1 million homes a year. I would clearly like to see more of that home building and I look forward to discussing with her, as we approach the manifesto-writing process, how we can best deliver it.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Duty Solicitor Scheme
(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the duty solicitor scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. In preparing for this debate, I have been particularly grateful to Rob Newman, a retired solicitor who lives in my constituency, and Tony Steiner, the chief executive of the Devon and Somerset Law Society, for their thoughts and guidance on the subject.
It would be easy to try and characterise this as a debate about those accused of crimes and their representatives, but it goes much deeper. Today’s debate is about a key part of how we deliver justice and truly serve victims of crime. The duty solicitor schemes provide essential representation for suspects at police stations. They allow investigations to move forward quickly and are critical to ensuring that victims and defendants get justice. An effective duty solicitor scheme is vital to properly functioning law enforcement. It allows the police to more quickly decide if they have grounds for further investigation and a possible charging decision; if the person they have detained is not the one they are looking for and can be quickly released; or even if the matters are not criminal matters and can therefore be discontinued.
The process ensures that our courts can then deliver a fair trial based on evidence from an effective and timely police interview, and victims can then see justice done in a timely and effective way. Good legal advice at the earlier stages can be vital for avoiding miscarriages of justice—examples of which we have been debating quite regularly in this House over the last two to three months. If the duty solicitor service fails, our justice system fails. Police interviews are delayed and victims find themselves waiting longer for justice, which may never come if the issues with the duty solicitor scheme are not addressed.
I will start with the current situation. Across England and Wales, duty solicitor schemes are in crisis. Since 2017, more than 1,400 duty solicitors have left the duty rota system and many schemes have fewer than seven members, making 24/7 coverage near impossible, and that is without making allowances for sickness or those wishing to take annual leave, creating a vicious cycle of duty rota obligations, which is likely to push even more out of the profession. We should remember that a core part of this is having someone available, for example, to attend a police station interview in the early hours of the morning. It is not just about attending court during the day.
To give the figures for my own region, in 2017 there were 109 duty solicitors operating in Devon and Cornwall. By last year, that number was 78—down 28%—and the forecast for 2027 is 64. As the 2027 forecast for Devon and Cornwall also brings home, it is not just the numbers leaving the duty scheme that suggests a need for change. Without an attractive package to encourage those at the start of their careers to join the duty solicitor scheme, or to encourage others to stay, those who remain on the duty rota are now ageing. Nationally, less than 4% of duty solicitors are under 35 years old, and the average age in 2021 was 49. If I were still working in the sector, I would be feeling very youthful at the moment. The number is higher in many regions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him before we came in today. In 2018, the Law Society stated that there was a “chronic” shortage of duty solicitors, as he has said, and that nearly half were over 50 and due to retire soon. More than a third of all junior solicitors in Northern Ireland are now employed in large firms. Does he agree that more needs to be done to encourage junior solicitors to take up positions in legal aid schemes to ensure that those who cannot afford to choose a solicitor have readily available access in police stations and in the courts as well?
Kevin Foster
I can only agree with my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), about encouraging people to go into this area of legal aid. There are issues around legal aid more generally, but in this area, police station interviews, police station duty and the right to representation at a police station all create different challenges from those faced in, for example, providing legal aid in planned settings in the courts, particularly when it comes to timing and advice. Being a duty solicitor is literally about getting a phone call in the early hours of the morning asking to come and attend an interview immediately, while someone waits in custody, and we need to look at how to get more people coming into it.
The overall figures do not show how stark the facts are in some regions. There are literally zero practising criminal law solicitors working in the system aged under 35 in Cornwall, Lincolnshire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire. Not one person who started their legal career in the last 12 years is practising as a criminal law solicitor in those four counties. Other areas are close to that figure, with only one criminal law solicitor aged under 35 in Norfolk, Shropshire and Warwickshire. In Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, East Sussex, Lincolnshire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire, over 60% of criminal law solicitors are aged over 50. The result is that, with expected retirements, rotas will shrink even further, to the point where there is simply no one left to take part.
The National Audit Office recently highlighted that the Ministry of Justice
“has been slow to respond to market sustainability issues”,
and the Law Society for England and Wales echoes that view. We simply cannot wait until the final generation of criminal lawyers retires to start tackling the issue, not least as those starting law degrees today will be at least five years away from being able to fully practise. To tackle the issue of people retiring in five years’ time, we need to start now.
The issue of the duty solicitor scheme also links to one of the biggest achievements of Boris Johnson’s premiership: putting in place plans to recruit an additional 20,000 police officers as part of the national uplift programme, which has now been delivered. Extra police officers means more issues dealt with, more crimes detected, more suspects to be interviewed and more cases before the courts. It is estimated, based on a National Audit Office report, that an extra 729,000 cases could be set to enter the criminal justice system by 2030 because of the extra 20,000 police officers. A lot of cases will not necessarily require full police interviews. Some might be dealt with by other forms of disposal, but we need to think about the extra demand.
What happens if a police station cannot find a duty solicitor? First, the police might be forced to release a suspect as they cannot interview them without a legal representative. The freshness of evidence might be lost. Even the potential for early admissions, which would make the process a lot easier for victims, might similarly be lost. The pressure builds on police station cells and local court backlogs if they are waiting for a duty solicitor to attend, and victims will be forced to wait longer for justice. We might even find that innocent bystanders arrested in error will have to wait longer before they can be released.
The impact continues once a case gets to court. Nearly half of defendants appearing in the magistrates courts on imprisonable summary offences did not have legal representation recorded on their case in the first half of 2023. That figure rose from 35% during 2022.
One response to the current situation has been consolidation, with criminal defence lawyers and practices becoming part of specialist firms, rather than being departments of larger multidisciplinary teams, but that is not without its own issues. As one criminal defence solicitor working in the south-west region put it:
“The truth is that the local rota is reduced to 9 or 10 people grouped in 4 firms…The 4 firms are crime only and there are no mixed practices who do any duty work or any quantity of criminal work. The consequence of this is that each Solicitor has a 24 hour duty slot every 10 days as well as the duty slots at the court 4 days per week and remand duties over video link 5 days per week which means there is some duty every day.”
It is not clear whether that is physically sustainable, but consolidation has also produced another impact, which may be less visible. That was stated as:
“Another difficulty is with conflicts as once the four firms are used up, there is no one that the fifth defendant on the case can seek advice from. We are starting therefore to get justice deserts in various parts of the country including our own.”
Also, consolidation will remove any form of choice. Most people accept that, while there might not be wide choice around legal aid, the ability to have some choice, particularly when their liberty is on the line, is still important.
It is easy to outline problems, but we also need to look at solutions. In the short-term, we need to stop experienced lawyers leaving duty work for other, more rewarding areas of legal practice, or simply to areas where they do not have the rota obligations. As the Law Society has pointed out, criminal legal aid rates have not really increased since the mid-1990s, while most other areas of law have been able to determine their rate based on the market. The Minister will know that, back in 2022, the independent review of criminal legal aid took place. However, the Government rejected the central recommendation of an immediate increase in rates of 15% as the first step, and instead implemented a 9% rise, which would eventually rise to 11%. Since then, practitioners have continued to leave the system, and the change does not appear to have produced a recovery in duty solicitor numbers. The Minister will be aware of the judicial review, which found back in January that the decisions had been irrational and should be retaken.
To halt the decline and potential collapse of the system, it is clear that the Government must implement the recommendations of the report, particularly given the impact of inflation on the profession since the report was published in 2021. It should be noted that criminal legal aid firms undertake a range of work, so actions should be taken as a package rather than as individual items. Even that will not change the longer-term picture. Quite clearly, we need a strategy to make working in our criminal justice system more rewarding, with specific measures to encourage those learning law at university to train for the duty solicitor scheme when they graduate.
There is not time in this debate to go into all the nuanced details around creating a public defender system akin to the Crown Prosecution Service, which effectively is a nationalisation of prosecution work. It is not a simple thing to do and could be fraught with challenges, in particular around maintaining independence from the state, which will of course be pursuing criminal charges against the individuals seeking to be represented. Like the current duty solicitor scheme, it could find itself struggling to attract the resources and human capital it needs. Yet the Government should consider how they can incentivise new lawyers to train specifically for criminal law work, especially in police station and duty solicitor roles.
Given what I have outlined, there are some specific points to which I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response. First, what is the Government’s planned response to the recent High Court ruling and its clear findings on the duty solicitor scheme? Secondly, will the Government recognise the crisis in the duty solicitor scheme and put in place the fee increases that its own commissioned review said are needed to prevent the system’s collapse? Thirdly, given the urgent need for more training for this work to prevent the rota from disappearing over the coming decade, has the Minister given any thought to incentives such as a golden hello or funded training package, which could come with requirements to be on the rota for a set number of years? That could be like the packages we see in, for example, the armed forces and other areas of public service, where people are funded to be trained to do a particular job and then have to accept a commitment to do it for the public benefit. Finally, with few entering the profession in recent years, how will the Government support training to ensure capacity while still having criminal lawyers delivering the rota?
As someone who once worked as a criminal lawyer funded by legal aid, there is a lot more I could say about this issue, but time is limited. I said at the start that the duty solicitor scheme lies at the heart of our criminal justice system. It cannot operate without the scheme, yet it is ageing and more people are leaving. This is about ensuring that victims can get timely justice, that miscarriages are avoided and that cases proceed quickly and effectively, for the benefit of all involved. Without urgent investment and action on our duty solicitor scheme, none of those things can happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this debate, and for his focus on this important matter. I will begin by commending criminal legal aid solicitors for the invaluable work that they do across the whole criminal justice system. Legal aid is a fundamental pillar of our free and fair justice system. It underpins the rule of law so that ordinary citizens can uphold their rights and liberties. In the criminal justice system it supports those charged with an offence to defend themselves, and assures that the allegations made against them are properly tested. Criminal legal aid solicitors play a vital role in ensuring that the system works.
It may be helpful to explain that in England and Wales, two duty solicitor schemes operate in parallel. The police station duty solicitor scheme enables a person who is arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence to consult a solicitor free of charge, either in person or over the telephone, while in police custody. The court duty solicitor scheme allows a person who has already been charged with an offence to consult and be represented by a solicitor free of charge at the magistrates court on their first appearance if they do not have, or have simply not contacted, their own solicitor.
Turning to the funding for solicitors, we have boosted the system with immediate investment in response to the criminal legal aid independent review, known as CLAIR, and are introducing further reforms that will support solicitors. Access to justice is a fundamental right, and in 2023 we spent £1.86 billion on legal aid, of which £873 million was on crime. Investment in the legal aid sector is continuing. In September 2022, we uplifted most criminal legal aid fee schemes by 15%, including a 15% increase to the police station scheme and the magistrates court scheme, which includes youth court work. That was in direct response to CLAIR, to support and strengthen the criminal legal aid sector.
To give my hon. Friend a glimmer of hope, since we introduced the fee scheme and the new standard crime contract came into force, we have seen an increase in the number of duty solicitors registering for the scheme. In fact, between October 2022 and April 2023, the number of duty solicitors rose by about 7.5%. While I accept that that does not take the numbers to where they were several years ago, it is an early sign of at least some stabilisation in the scheme.
Kevin Foster
Will the Minister commit to writing to me, and perhaps placing a copy of the letter in the Library, setting out where the numbers have changed in each region as defined by the areas that are covered in the duty rota schemes?
Mike Freer
If I can break it down by region, I will give my hon. Friend a full response. I will happily share the figures I have available, and I will place a copy of them in the Library.
On 29 January this year, we published a consultation on proposed reforms to the police station fee scheme and the youth court fees, where an additional £21.1 million per year has been allocated. We expect our reforms to criminal legal aid to increase investment in the solicitor profession by about £85 million every year, including a 30% increase in funding for solicitors’ work in police stations and a 20% increase for their work in magistrates courts once we introduce the additional £21 million a year.
The investment, alongside planned longer-term reforms, increases criminal legal aid spending by up to £141 million a year, which means the overall spend for criminal legal aid is expected to be up to £1.2 billion per year—the highest level of investment in criminal legal aid in a decade. That additional funding into the system will contribute to the sustainability of the market and help to ensure that legal aid is accessible in the future.
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the reduction in the number of duty solicitors, notwithstanding the recent increase. I meet the Legal Aid Agency regularly to discuss matters pertaining to criminal legal aid, including the duty solicitor schemes. The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews and monitors the number of duty solicitors on each local duty scheme to ensure adequate provision and access to legal aid. It has arrangements in place to ensure that all duty rotas have cover 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I accept that in some areas that is sometimes quite a big ask, but the Legal Aid Agency works closely with practitioners to ensure coverage in areas where it is tight.
Kevin Foster
On the numbers, I want to be clear that the issue is people actively taking cases. One retired solicitor who knew I had secured this debate told me that he still gets an email each year saying that he is still licensed to do stuff, even though he has not actually practised as a criminal lawyer in 10 years. It is the numbers of people actively doing things.
Mike Freer
I will have to double check, but my understanding is that those numbers are for those who that have signed up for the standard crime contract. I am not sure a retired solicitor would have signed, so that individual should not be captured in the figures.
I assure my hon. Friend that although the numbers of solicitors firms offering criminal legal aid and offices delivering the service have declined, police station and court duty solicitor schemes remain fully covered. I am slightly less worried about the number of offices; I think we can sometimes get fixated on that. I appreciate that in more rural areas having a physical office is important, but in other parts of the country, with mergers of firms, I do not believe we need to get hung up about physical presence as long as we have the solicitors on the ground. That is a more important measure than the number of offices.
Kevin Foster
I agree with the Minister about physical office locations, not least in an era of homeworking. My concern is not so much about the physical local of an office. If firms merge, there is still the potential for conflicts. If there are four firms doing this work in Devon, and five defendants, there is the potential for so-called cut-throat defence. It is not about whether there is a physical office; it is the fact that if those firms join together, conflicts can arise.
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend, being a practising solicitor, has greater knowledge of the intricacies than I do, but I will take that point on board. I assure him that the provision of duty solicitors is a priority and we are actively taking steps to ensure all schemes continue to operate, both now and in the future.
I will touch on a couple of points that my hon. Friend mentioned. The judicial review relating to the funding for criminal solicitors has ended. As he mentioned, a year ago the Law Society filed a JR claim challenging the funding decision taken by the previous Lord Chancellor in response to the criminal legal aid independent review. It focused mostly on the litigators’ graduated fee scheme and the decision not to apply the full 50% uplift across all elements of it. LGFS is a remuneration scheme for solicitors undertaking Crown court work. We were clear in our response to CLAIR why we did not increase the fees for pages of prosecution evidence. That was due to the perverse incentives identified by CLAIR, whereby payments are based primarily on the volume of pages served to the prosecution, irrespective of whether they are read, and not on the work done.
The judgment was handed down on 31 January. Although the claimants were successful on a specific narrow grounds relating to the decision-making process, the majority of the arguments were rejected by the court. We are carefully considering the judgment and will respond in due course.
Furthermore, we are currently working with stakeholders through a sub-group of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board on reform of the LGFS. One aim of the reform is to address the perverse incentives of pages of prosecution evidence identified by CLAIR. We are aiming to consult on LGFS reform later this year.
To answer the point about the number of younger practitioners in the sector, I understand the concern. That is why the chair of CLAAB, Her Honour Deborah Taylor, asked for the numbers on the board to be increased, to include younger practitioners both at the criminal Bar and in the solicitor sector. That has been agreed and the younger voices of the sector are on CLAAB, which will hopefully help to inform decisions so that we can ensure a flow of younger solicitors into the criminal representation side of the justice system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay also raised the issue of training and ensuring that crime pays, as it were. I accept the point that we seem to have a revolving door. In particular, solicitor firms invest in training solicitors, who then leave and move on to different parts of the criminal justice system once training is completed. We are conscious of that, and Her Honour Deborah Taylor is looking at what we can do to change how training is funded to address that revolving door. Obviously, that is still a work in progress and the sector is being consulted.
Have I answered all my hon. Friend’s questions? He is welcome to intervene if I have missed anything.
Kevin Foster
The Minister is being very generous in inviting interventions. He will know that I sometimes hear with interest the words “in due course”—they are commonly used, and it is amazing what they can cover. Can he give me a flavour of any timelines that have been set for work on the response? For example, is he aiming to publish it by the summer? I hear what he says about training, and academic years are obviously vital in that area with new trainees starting each September, so has he set himself a particular timeline for the work to be done, to allow him to respond in due course?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board does not work to my timeline, but I will contact Her Honour Deborah Taylor to see whether she can share a timeline for when at least some initial thoughts, if not a final report, will be made available.
We have a shared aim of achieving a system that fairly reflects the work of our excellent legal professionals and sustains criminal legal aid well into the future. We appreciate that the system is under pressure, and we want to ensure that it is robust and that people have access to justice. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate and to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that he has found my answers at least helpful and informative.
Question put and agreed to.
Sport: Gambling Advertising
(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gambling advertising in sport.
A couple of weeks ago in this Chamber, we debated affordability checks in gambling, and the Government Benches were rammed with those who seemed to have racecourses in their constituencies. They did not understand that affordability checks did not apply on course. I am not sure where they are today—did someone say Cheltenham?
I do not claim to be an expert on how advertising and marketing work. Like most people, I am exposed to adverts on TV, billboards and the internet. I wonder, does associating a puppy dog with a certain brand of toilet paper make me more likely to buy that brand? Do pictures of a car racing through stunning mountain scenery or unusually empty city centre streets increase the chances of me buying that particular car? Do adverts offering me free bets or extra spins make it more likely that I will gamble?
I—like most people, I presume—believe that I am impervious to such obvious and sometimes clumsy attempts at selling, and then I take a step back and see that I am also guilty of this. That is particularly obvious during an election year. I am trying to get re-elected, and I promote myself and the brand I represent through advertising. I consider how best to get that combination over to my constituents and, like most politicians, I use the tried and tested methods of leaflets, door knocking, newsletters, hustings, radio, TV and social media. I tell people, “Vote Cowan. Vote SNP.”
My experience tells me that this has worked three times before, and that I have therefore done something right. The gambling industry is simply doing the same thing, but its income is vast. It spends huge sums of money—£1.5 billion a year—to achieve a far greater reach than any parliamentarian can, and we are all exposed to it. If I see a letterbox that says “no leaflets”, I do not post one. Unfortunately, the gambling industry is less selective, and by placing adverts in and around sporting arenas and putting them on the players and around the pitch, it removes the opportunity for fans to decline the offer of being advertised to.
Despite the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice, the gambling industry continues to stretch the rules, with 3,500 gambling logos visible during a single English premier league game, in plain sight for anyone to see. Only 7% of those were on the front of shirts, so the impending change to adverts on the front of shirts means nothing, and the gambling industry knows it. It was proposed that family areas free of gambling adverts could be established in football grounds, but one year on, nothing has changed. When it comes to advertising to children, bet365, Ladbrokes, MrQ, and Lights Camera Bingo all broke the rules.
In short, if the gambling industry—any industry—did not think that spending huge amounts of money was not generating more in returns, it simply would not do it. Self-regulation is not sufficient for any industry ever-hungry for more. Advertising increases the gambling industry revenue. Advertising normalises gambling. According to the ASA, that was a predicted consequence of the Gambling Act 2005. Advertising increases the reach and therefore the number of people who are gambling.
The hypocrisy is that while gambling benefits from the sports, most sports do not actually benefit from gambling. The gambling industry is a parasite living off the lifeblood of the sports that it uses. It makes gambling the most important factor and the sport a poor second. The game is not the same without a bet—that is the message.
That is a great shame. I remember great moments in sport with joy: Daley Thompson’s decathlon golds in 1980 and 1984; Ian Botham’s 149 against Australia at Headingley; Ovett, Coe and Cram racing against the clock and one another; Torvill and Dean at Sarajevo in 1984; and Andy Murray winning Wimbledon twice. There was not an advert in sight. And George Best just being George Best—I did not need a bet on these things to enjoy them. The sport must be the priority and gambling advertising must be curtailed. I would say that, just like tobacco, it should be completely removed from the world of sport.
Of course, this issue goes beyond that. The UK Government have said that there was “good evidence” that advertising had a “disproportionate impact” on people who already had problems with their gambling. In addition, some forms of online advertising had a strong appeal to those under 18. According to an Ipsos MORI report, more than four out of five of those aged 11 to 24 reported seeing gambling advertising on TV, and that includes the national lottery. Two thirds reported seeing gambling promotions on their social media channels.
In September 2023, a Bristol University report told us that 92% of content marketing ads sent by major gambling brands were not clearly identifiable as advertising, which breaches a key advertising regulation, and that less than a quarter of them featured age warnings. There was at least one gambling advert during any commercial break on talkSPORT radio and there were 600 gambling messages during two hours of Sky Sports News. In addition, 1,902 gambling ads on social media generated a total of 34 million impressions.
One of the lead researchers, Raffaello Rossi, said that the report showed that
“gambling marketing during Premier League weekends is inescapable”,
and that fans were
“bombarded with gambling marketing through various channels, making it a normal part of football consumption.”
He claimed that self-regulation of the gambling industry was “completely failing”.
Meanwhile, the Gambling Commission will review incentives, continue to monitor practices and work to strengthen consent for direct marketing. But in the here and now, 80,000 UK children are addicted to gambling or at risk, up to 1.4 million adults in the UK are harmed directly and 20% of the population is harmed directly or indirectly. There are between 117 and 496 gambling suicides in England every year.
The time to review and monitor has passed. We need to understand the nature of addiction and see it as a health issue. We need to slow down gambling, build in cooling-off periods and give people space and time to consider their actions and the outcomes. Advertising does the opposite of those things; it pushes, cajoles and encourages.
Finally, we need to respect the fact that some people might be triggered by adverts. We need to protect our children. Nobody is asking anyone to make some sacrifice for this; we are not asking the Government to dip into their pocket. We can ban gambling advertising and we should do that now.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
As ever, Sir Christopher, it is a privilege to serve under your stewardship. May I apologise in advance to the Members here, including the Minister and the Opposition spokesman? I have been losing my voice for most of the last week. Lots of my colleagues think that is a good thing, but I give warning that if I stop suddenly, it is because I have given up on this, although not on getting rid of gambling advertising in sport, which is important. I also may not be here for the wind-ups, because—self-evidently—I have to go to a doctor’s appointment.
Alongside the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan)—my hon. Friend in this matter—I am a vice chair of the all-party group for gambling related harm. Although we strongly support the measures that the Minister has introduced—I credit him for having moved this issue along more than many others have done before him—the whole idea of voluntary agreements with the gambling industry have been proved time and again to be a waste of time. All that happens is that companies are driven by the requirement to constantly renew the users of their gambling area and, most importantly, as we know, the gambling industry targets those who lose, and lose big. That is where their money is made and where their profits are drawn from, and what they must constantly do is have their idea in front of those people, to suggest to them subliminally, but still very clearly, that if they just gamble a bit more, they will win something else. That is the nature of gambling. People say to me, “Yes, but you know, these are just adverts on shirts. Nobody remembers seeing them.” But the figures, some of which have been mentioned, are remarkable, and I will cite some of them.
Ipsos MORI and the University of Stirling found that 96% of people aged 11 to 24 had seen and could remember gambling marketing messages and that they were “more likely” as a result—their words, not mine—to bet as a result of their seeing advertising on shirts and hoardings, or wherever they happened to be. More than three quarters of young people, or 78%, and 86% of adults think that betting has become an absolutely normal part of watching sport—I will say that again: watching sport. Back in the 18th century, people bet everything on all sorts of sporting events, and it had to be brought under control because of the abuses that took place. Today, we see things that are redolent of a very unlicensed, but at the same time, desperately dangerous activity that is pushing people to spend their money and become addicted to a process that ultimately damages them and their families.
Gambling marketing in football cannot be avoided by fans of any age. I say that as a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur, who do not use gambling, but I watch other teams and the marketing is all over their shirts. I know the idea is to move it away from the front of the shirt to the side or whatever, but most of the evidence shows categorically that it makes no difference, because the marketing will be on the shirts that people buy. The company that the club has a sponsor becomes part of the nature of the club. That is important.
One study found that at football matches there was a reference to gambling on average every 21 seconds. Half of the premier league’s 20 clubs and 17 of the 24 championship clubs have gambling companies on their shirts and, of course, the football league is sponsored by Sky, which has its own betting company. They all use celebrities to front up a lot of the adverts and present this as something normal and exciting. They target, for the most part, young men, but now more and more young women, who are portrayed as beating the odds. The reality is far from that. I am not against people betting if they want to bet and gamble—they can do that. The question is whether we want to see this promoted in such a way that it becomes normal. That is the critical issue that we are discussing.
Another concern at a recent session of the all-party group for gambling related harm was the failure of current ASA codes to deliver on the reduction of harm. In the opening weekend of the EPL, it was observed that 92% of content—marketing ads—sent by major gambling brands were not clearly identifiable as advertising, as has been said, and thus breached the codes, which is obvious for us to see. We know—the Minister knows—that this happens all the time, so we need to tread very carefully when we think that we can rely on agreements with the gambling industry. It is not its nature, for the most part, to abide by those agreements. It is its nature to seek to multiply the number of people that will gamble, so it will push the envelope on any agreement that is made.
The current codes are ill-equipped to deal with the online-specific forms of marketing. The ASA should consider the creation of new codes as opposed to revisions of pre-existing codes. That would perhaps ensure that social media and online marketing can be effectively regulated.
I am not one of those who wants to regulate everything, stop everything and take the pleasure out of what people choose. My view, however, is that, as with common law, when it is clear that harm is being done, we have an obligation to see whether we can restrict that harm so that people’s lives are not damaged—not before, not anticipating the event, but actually dealing with the harm that exists at present. The push of gambling advertising is huge. Nobody who watches television or a sporting event can escape the idea that this is in front of them, even subliminally, although they may not remember it. Unless advertising reform is enacted at the source of harm, the reforms will be confined to playing catch-up to the constantly evolving landscape of sponsorship, marketing and advertising, and consequently failing to reduce gambling harms.
That is why I support the motion and why this matter is cross-party. We have an obligation to deal with some of the tougher issues that come our way. Notwithstanding the amount of tax these companies pay to the Treasury, the harm to human beings is the real currency of our lives, and we need to bring that to an end.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this important debate on an issue that I and many of my constituents care deeply about.
Almost 7,000 gambling messages were shown in six televised matches over the premier league’s opening weekend. If that does not set off alarm bells, I am not sure what will. My speech will not completely oppose gambling—in fact, I am sure I will be placing a bet on the grand national in a few weeks’ time, and my other half does a few quid on the acca for football on a Saturday—but it is clear that gambling addiction, fuelled by excessive gambling advertisements, impacts our communities. YouGov research found that nationally 1.4 million adults are harmed directly by gambling. Shockingly, the Gambling Commission stated that 80,000 UK children are addicted or at risk.
I want to say thank you to the brilliant organisations, Gambling with Lives and The Big Step campaign, which raise awareness of the harm that is being caused. They have introduced me to their volunteers, who have personal connections to the harm caused by gambling. Some had loved ones who sadly ended their lives as a consequence of their gambling addiction. Others are survivors who now campaign to ensure that other people do not suffer the pain that they did. The message is always the same: the pain is preventable. I have found many of these discussions incredibly moving.
The current gambling regulations are failing the public terribly, and there is no sign of change to protect the next generation, as we have heard from others. The industry’s voluntary whistle-to-whistle ban in football is completely ineffective, as it applies only to TV adverts. Over two thirds of fans who responded to a Survation poll said they felt it had not prevented children from seeing gambling advertisements in football. With insufficient regulation, football is often the hook to get the young into gambling, especially as they are then cross-sold highly addictive online casino products.
It is important to recognise that not just fans are impacted. We have seen the impact on players in recovery who are made to advertise the addictive products, including Ivan Toney, Sandro Tonali and Harry Toffolo. Football is so important to our communities, creating a shared identity that ties us together with a common objective, mostly just three points at the weekend, possibly six for Luton this weekend, but also seeing our team represent us with dignity. That is why I am proud of my local football club, Luton Town, for leading the way, by refusing to choose a gambling shirt and stadium sponsor. Across the premier league and the English football league, only Luton Town’s 19 home games will not feature gambling adverts, according to The Big Step. That is only 0.8% of games. It is disappointing that seven premier league clubs will still display gambling companies as their main shirt sponsor. Luton Town is part of The Big Step campaign to kick all gambling advertisements out of football, alongside other clubs such as Tranmere Rovers and Forest Green Rovers. Sadly, not all football clubs can be relied on to do the right thing, even though we know that a sponsorship ban would cost clubs only around 2.5% of revenue.
What measures are the Government considering to curtail gambling advertising in sport, especially in football? I reiterate the point already made, that this is a public health issue. Just like measures to reduce advertising of cigarettes to tackle smoking harms, would the Minister consider, as a first step, a review into banning pitch-side advertising in football, to reduce gambling harm? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on leading the debate and speaking so diligently on these issues, as he has in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. He deserves credit and congratulations for that. He has been vocal on the issue and I thank him for that. It is such an important issue for the betterment of so many across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I too have been a supporter of further tightening gambling laws, especially within sport, given the potential dangers for young people and vulnerable adults. It is therefore great to be here to support the matter and give the hon. Gentleman credit for the debate and support his asks of the Minister. I am pleased to see the two shadow Ministers in their place. I look forward to their contribution and to others as well.
As I always do, I want to give a perspective from back home. That is good to do because unfortunately, for us back home, gambling has a bigger percentage impact on people than on the mainland. That is terribly worrying. In December 2023, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland stated that in its most recent survey, it was discovered that in Northern Ireland some 2.3% of the population was identified as having a gambling problem. That is more than four times higher than the percentage recorded on the GB mainland right here. That worries me incredibly and it reflects my contact with some of my constituents on the issue as well. That is why what the hon. Member for Inverclyde is bringing to the fore is important and he deserves credit for that.
The impact that gambling has on young people is incredible. Whether they see that through social media, ads on TV or even live at football games, the encouragement is there for them to feel the need to partake and participate. I commend the football club of the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), Luton Town. I know of it because I have been reading about it in the paper—and the team’s manager was on TV this morning as well. It is really good to see the club leading the way. I just wish other teams, including my own, would be as diligent in the matter.
The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has revealed that three in 10, or 30%, of under-18s took part in some form of gambling in the last 12 months. That is a worrying trend, with young boys being more likely to partake. Of those, 15% of children said that they were encouraged to do so by the adverts they had seen on TV while watching football matches. We should never think that watching matches and the advertisements that viewers see do not have an impact. Those figures state it clearly and that influence once again underlines the issue we have before us today.
There was some movement in 2022 whereby footballers, celebrities and social media influencers were to be banned from participating in gambling adverts. There is no doubt in my head that watching those people encourages young people to find a way to gamble. Seeing their sporting heroes, such as ex-footballers, ex-football managers and so on promote gambling does not, in my humble opinion, do much for the cause of protecting young people against the dangers of gambling. It is also great that that applies not only to sporting events but to online gaming advertisements.
I have met and spoken with many families in the past who have sadly lost their children due to the impact of online gambling. Many have rightfully made the point that young people are taught about the dangers of excessive drinking, drug use, smoking, road safety and sextortion online, but they are not taught nearly as much about the dangers of gambling and betting. They should be, because the dangers are just as real. Issues can start small, from something as simple as playing a card game with friends, but the addictive nature of gambling makes the risk of winning addictive, and that is harming so many young and adult lives.
Gambling, along with alcohol consumption, smoking and so on, is one of the things in life that most people will be inclined to try, and just by the very nature of the society that I was brought up and lived in, it was the norm for the weekends and a Saturday afternoon. Yet I believe we have a responsibility to raise awareness of the dangers of gambling that come with misuse, especially for young people out there who are not aware of the long-term damage that can be caused.
I am therefore pleased that some of the correct steps have been taken, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. He always encapsulates well our desires for change and for highlighting these issues, so I look forward to his comments. Some of the steps taken to combat this include regulating ads on social media and restricting betting company ads on TV to certain times, but there is much more work to be done on this matter.
To conclude, there are some fantastic support services out there for people who feel that their gambling is becoming or getting out of control. I urge people to take advantage of all these services for the sake of their own health and wellbeing. This debate is twofold: it is about reducing the impact of advertising in sport, but it is also about helping those people who have those problems to try to beat their addiction. If we can do that through this debate—even if it is a step in the right direction—the hon. Member for Inverclyde deserves credit and is to be commended for it. Others who make contributions will endorse that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I think it is the first time in 14 years that I have been called after the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but I am delighted to have been, because he made a fine speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing the debate and on how he introduced it. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on struggling through against illness to make the case, which I know he feels passionately about.
It is certainly timely that we debate this issue now, in the context of the gambling reform that is following on from the White Paper. It is important, because we need to look at the context in which we saw the White Paper and in which we are having this debate, which is the increasing level of gambling addiction. I am a Sheffield United season ticket holder. It is not easy. [Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Member for Inverclyde that there are not many moments of joy at Bramall Lane at the moment. I have watched them for 61 years now, but over the past couple of decades I have seen the increasing dominance of gambling advertising throughout the game, and that is not simply when we are having one of our fleeting moments in the premier league. I am conscious that that is only the tip of an iceberg in terms of the online promotion of gambling.
Over that same period, I have seen the increase in gambling harm. Jack Ritchie, my constituent, of whom many people here know, was also a passionate Sheffield United fan, but he took his own life due to gambling addiction—one of an estimated 400 each year, according to Public Health England. A survey by YouGov found up to 1.44 million adults in the UK harmed directly by gambling. The NHS is picking up the pieces, setting up specialist gambling addiction clinics across the country. Last year, the NHS announced seven new clinics, with one opening in Sheffield this month.
What we are dealing with is recognised by the Government and the NHS as a health issue, and what do we do with other health problems? We treat them, but we also have prevention strategies. The Government’s White Paper provides a strong prevention strategy and, like the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I commend them on it. There is much in there that takes us significantly forward, but it sidesteps one important point, which is advertising and how betting ads flood our sports—football in particular.
Others have pointed out the estimate that 3,500 betting logos are visible during a single televised premier league match; that is extraordinary. That is a gambling logo every 16 seconds during the average game. According to calculations from Gambling with Lives, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned, out of 2,370 premier league and English football league games this season, only 19 will not feature gambling ads. I join others in commending Luton, and I hope that they might, along with Sheffield United, escape relegation.
I mentioned harm to adults, but the hon. Member for Strangford and others were right to also focus on the harm to young people. That should worry us even more. According to the Gambling Commission, 80,000 UK children are addicted to gambling or at risk of gambling addiction. The commission says that 40% of 11 to 17-year-olds have engaged in some form of gambling over the last 12 months, which is a higher proportion than those who participated in other risk-taking activities, with 20% vaping, 9% having smoked a cigarette, and 8% having taken illegal drugs. On all of those other high-risk activities we take action, and we certainly do not advertise those products.
The 2023 study by Sheffield and Glasgow universities found that the more people are exposed to betting advertising, the more likely they are to gamble—that should not be a surprise; it is what the gambling industry spends all that money for—and that increases the risk of developing an addiction. We know that children and young people are most likely to be affected. According to a study from the University of Bristol, gambling ads are almost four times—I think it is 3.9 times—more appealing to children and young people than they are to adults. They say that 11 out of 12 gambling content marketing ads triggered positive responses in children and young people, compared with only seven out of 12 for adults. The Gambling Commission reports that most gambling exposure for children is when watching TV, primarily sport, or being at a sports event.
It is not just an issue for campaigners; fans themselves want more to be done. A study by Survation found that a third of football fans are less likely to buy a shirt with gambling sponsors on it, and 58% think that too many clubs are sponsored by gambling companies. Everton and Aston Villa fans have already shown that shirts without betting sponsors are more popular. When, at the end of the 2019-20 season, Everton and Villa ditched their gambling sponsors, shirt sales rose by 60% and 50% respectively.
Others have touched on self-regulation, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in particular, and some cite action by the Premier League, but that is not working. Football has had every chance to address gambling advertising. Premier league clubs voted to ban sponsorship deals with betting companies from 2026-27, but the ban does not include bans on shirt sleeves, pitch-side hoardings or other sites around the stadium. That is significant, considering that only 7% of the 3,500 logos are visible on the front of the shirt. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South pointed out, the industry’s voluntary whistle-to-whistle ban is completely ineffective. Research produced by the University of Bristol’s hub for gambling harms showed that football matches remain saturated by gambling messaging, and that over two thirds of fans feel that children are not prevented from seeing gambling ads at football.
Action must come from the Government, and indeed the Government in waiting. The Government publicly stated recently that online slots are one of the most addictive products. That is correct, but they still allow them to be promoted through football. The White Paper proposed gambling ad-free family areas in football grounds, but one year on nothing has been done. More matches are set to be screened every week from next season. It is clear that without Government intervention, more people, and particularly more children and young people, are going to be at risk of gambling harm.
The industry is running out of arguments to defend gambling advertising in sport. I am surprised that no Members are here to make this point—perhaps they are at Cheltenham—but we can anticipate, and we are already seeing, the industry pushing sports bodies and sports fans to press the case that their sport depends on the revenue that they get from advertising. That is an argument from scoundrels, and we have heard it all before. Big tobacco said the same about the importance of cigarette advertising in protecting individual sports, but we know that they were trying to limit damage to their reputation by association with sport. As we took action on cigarette advertising, so should we take action on gambling advertising. The industry will say, “Well, it’s not the premiership. It’s lower levels and it’s grassroot sport—the money is needed to sustain football.” Let us be clear: there is plenty of money in football. It is not distributed very well—we need more effective governance, and more of the money at the top to be shared right down the tiers of football—but football and other sports do not depend on the money from advertising.
I urge the Government to heed the wealth of evidence of the need for regulatory action and to deploy a precautionary approach, as with fixed odds betting terminals. Without action, the Department risks undermining the good progress that can be made from the White Paper. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde pointed out, sport is so important. It is hugely important to children and young people, and it is a force for so much good. We cannot let it be used anymore by the gambling industry for so much harm. Let us end advertising and sponsorship in sport without delay.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing it and starting us off in his own style—it is always fun to sum up his speeches. He questioned whether some of the Conservative Members might be at Cheltenham, present company clearly excluded. He spoke about puppy dogs and toilet roll, and then got to free bets, but he was absolutely right. He also mentioned the hypocrisy—I would not say “rank” hypocrisy—from MPs who seek to advertise. He mentioned that he will be seeking to encourage folk to vote “Cowan” and vote SNP. Hopefully, that will be made easier by the fact that he is stealing a significant chunk of my constituency at the next election, so there are some SNP voters waiting there for him.
My hon. Friend made a good point about the consent of spectators and viewers. Those images and adverts are everywhere; not everyone wants to see them, but they are in their face regardless. He then spoke about all the moments in sporting history when we were not subject to such adverts. I can understand Torvill and Dean, the battles between Coe and Ovett, and of course Andy Murray, but I found Ian Botham to be a stretch too far. That is at least two Tories that a younger Mr Cowan idolised, and I am not sure that will go down well. [Laughter.]
I am being a bit flippant about the very serious issue that lies beneath today’s debate: problem gambling and how we end it. I remember very well when, I think in the first year that I had been elected, a chap came along to my constituency surgery in Linwood. He was there for the whole surgery, essentially 45 minutes, talking to me about his story, his gambling past and how he had been at death’s door; he had ruined his life, ruined his family, and so on. He had been offered no real assistance in trying to stop, certainly nothing from the gambling industry, and he was looking to try to help others from going down the same path. Fixed odds betting terminals were certainly part of his path, and we have legislated on those, but it progressed into all sorts of different forms of gambling. He manged to turn his life around, but that is not the norm.
The former Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the quiet man who once said he was turning up the volume, turned it down today, due to his voice trouble. I was going to say that he had my sympathy, but he is a Spurs season ticket holder, so things are looking up—I will come on to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in a minute! The right hon. Gentleman made a very good point about subliminal messaging through advertising that says, “If you gamble just a bit more, then you’ll win.” All of us have probably been suckered into something at some point or another, whether it is gambling, a purchase, or something else, by of subliminal advertising. He mentioned that there was a reference to gambling every 21 seconds in premier league matches, but I think the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said it was every 16 seconds. I do not know whether those are conflicting figures or I just misheard, but either way, it is a significant number; I just wanted to recognise that there were two figures there for Hansard.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned that she might put a bet on the grand national, and that her partner puts on an acca on occasion. That makes me think back to my younger days and how much gambling used to play a part in my pre-rugby rituals. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, I used to play rugby, and my friends and I would meet on a Saturday morning and “put lines on”, as we said —that would be called an acca now. Then we would go and play pool, at which we invariably gambled a bit against each other, and then go downstairs to play the puggies, which is a term for fruit machines in western Scotland. I had not given that any thought until the hon. Member for Luton South said that. I very rarely do any gambling these days, but in my younger days, we thought nothing of gambling as a matter of course. For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady is pointing to her phone, and she is absolutely right that it is so much easier to access the internet on phones these days as well. She also said that two thirds of fans said that the voluntary regs have not prevented children from being able to access or see TV advertising, and I think we all see that. She mentioned Luton Town, one of the very few teams in sport to ban gambling from not just its shops, but its stadium, which is to be commended.
Yesterday morning, I said that Westminster Hall should be named in the honour of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always here and always puts in a shift. He praised Luton Town, and said that all teams should perhaps reflect on its gambling ban, including his own. He neglected to mention which team that was, but we might hazard a guess. One of his better points—or best points; better points sounds as if he did not make any good points, and he made some excellent ones—was on the fact that we teach our young people and young adults about excessive drinking, smoking, excessive speed in cars, and so on, but we do not seem to talk about gambling as much, which we should.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central noted that this was the first time he had been called after the hon. Member for Strangford in all the time he had been here. If it had been anybody else, that might have sounded like a moan or a challenge to the Chair, but having worked with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central a few years ago, I know it certainly was not that. He mentioned that he was a Sheffield United season ticket holder. I have to say that I do not think they have troubles to seek this season in a footballing sense, but as a St Johnstone fan, I share his frustrations, given that St Johnstone is near the lower end of the table for the moment. He also mentioned the study by the Universities of Sheffield and Glasgow, and their findings that the more people are exposed to advertising, the more likely they are to gamble, and the more likely people are to gamble, the more likely they are to fall into problem gambling, seem obvious. He also mentioned big tobacco. It fought advertising bans, and so on, but a lot that we have done about smoking has paid dividends. If we put in the work on gambling, we can see dividends there as well.
It is fairly clear that gambling regulations must protect vulnerable people from harms, regardless of where they are exposed to gambling adverts. The time has beyond passed for action to tackle the shocking rise in gambling advertising. The Government have been praised for the work they have done in some areas hitherto, but we need to look pretty sharpish at their failure to address this problem, because advertising revenue has grown massively since the passage of the Gambling Act 2005. The National Audit Office estimated that there was a 56% increase in advertising spend by gambling operators between 2014 and 2017, driven primarily by online and social media advertising. If that was the proportion in 2017, goodness knows where it is now.
The Government’s White Paper on gambling is obviously to be welcomed. Its proposals include tougher restrictions on bonuses and direct marketing; making advertising smarter and safer; a new approach to safer gambling messaging; and socially responsible sport sponsorship—which is one of the main issues we are here to talk about. The Premier League has announced that front-of-shirt advertising for gambling is to end by the end of 2025-26 season, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee said, as we have discussed, that:
“The withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of Premier League players’ kit is welcome, but it will not significantly reduce the volume of gambling adverts visible during top-flight matches.”
It is pretty clear that there is a need for the Government to regulate gambling advertising, and we need to have a comprehensive conversation about how, if at all, gambling adverts should be allowed. Ultimately, this is a policy debate about the reduction of harms, and what is the point of us being here if we are not going to try to reduce harms for all of our constituents? We call on the Government to actively consider legislating to restrict the amount of advertising that gambling firms can procure in public broadcasting and sporting events.
The only slight caveat—not to that previous point, but in general terms—was to something that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said. He said that there is absolutely no need for this form of advertising in principle—I agree 100%—and that there is enough money in football so football does not need that money. The only slight caveat I have, having met Scottish clubs and umbrella bodies, is that the Scottish game is not awash with the same level of money as the game in England. Advertising revenue is much harder to come by in Scotland, with it being a much smaller market in comparison with England, so restrictions could cause problems. That does not mean we should not address and tackle this issue, but we should put on the record that it is not as straightforward in Scotland, Wales and so on as it perhaps is south of the border.
In 2018-19, gambling companies yielded more than £11 billion, which raised about £3 billion for the Government in gambling duties. The industry has been transformed by social and technological changes, and licensed gambling has grown by 57% in real terms in the last decade. But British gamblers lose £14 billion a year, according to the Gambling Commission, and Britain is home to the world’s largest regulated online betting market, with £14.2 billion in profits each year. Other countries, such as Germany, have introduced limits on how much customers can deposit. In our view, the 2005 Act must be modernised and made effective for the digital age, to provide adequate protection against gambling-related harms for problem gamblers and children.
To conclude, for problem gamblers the impact of gambling can be harmful and massively addictive. We have heard already that more than one person a day commits suicide in the UK because of gambling-related harms. Sadly, as we heard, that includes Jack Ritchie, who lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. Two million families are blighted by problem gambling, and more than 55,000 children between the ages of 11 and 16 are addicted to it. Those are pretty shocking statistics.
I will finish with this: according to a YouGov survey of 18,000 people, commissioned by GambleAware, gambling addiction rates may be nine times higher than the betting industry claims. GambleAware estimates that 1.4 million people are being harmed by their own gambling, with a further 1.5 million at risk. Although this debate’s attendance has not been as good as it perhaps should have been, we have had five Back Bench speeches, and now one Front-Bench speech, all speaking with one voice on this issue. It is time for the Government to act, or indeed for a new incoming Government to do so, if one is elected at the end of the year.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for securing this important debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The relationship between gambling and most sports is complex and, in many ways, symbiotic. However, given the growing knowledge of the impact of gambling harms on people’s lives, many have raised concerns about that connection. They worry that football and other sports might be playing a role in exposing vulnerable fans, sportspeople and, in particular, children and young people to the gambling market. Having met some of those receiving treatment for gambling addiction and families bereaved by gambling-related loss, I have seen the devastating effect that gambling can have on people’s lives.
In 2020, it was estimated that 7% of the population, including adults and children, were negatively affected by someone else’s gambling. That is even more concerning in a modernised world in which most people have the ability to gamble anywhere, at any time, on their phones. I am therefore pleased that the Government are finally under way with the implementation stage of the long-awaited gambling White Paper, which looks to make our gambling regulation fit for the modern digital era. Indeed, it has cross-party support, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) outlined.
The White Paper was, though, relatively light-touch on the issues that relate to gambling advertising in sport. It identified sports governing bodies as best placed to drive up standards regarding their gambling sponsorship deals. That is not to say that no action has been taken in this area: outside the White Paper, regulators, the industry and sports have made progress to increase protections. Last week, I met the Advertising Standards Authority, which told me about its work to regulate gambling advertising, particularly with a view to protecting children and young people, including the “strong appeal” test.
The gambling industry has signed up to a voluntary code of socially responsible advertising, which bans gambling adverts before 9 o’clock. The most recent version covers most live sport from five minutes before it starts to five minutes after it has ended. That is known as the whistle-to-whistle ban, and it has reduced the number of TV betting commercials viewed by children during live sporting events before the watershed by 97%. The Premier League has also announced that front-of-shirt gambling sponsors will be withdrawn from the start of the season in 2026.
However, those measures have received their fair share of criticism. Viewers are still exposed to a high number of gambling adverts and logos during sporting events, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted. That happens through a number of visuals, from hoardings and perimeter boards to players’ kits. Indeed, the Premier League’s commitment does not cover sponsorship on the sleeves and backs of shirts, and is not yet enforced.
As already discussed, the revenue from gambling sponsorship is crucial to some sports. However, the prevalence of such adverts poses a particular issue for children and those vulnerable to problem gambling as they are difficult to avoid, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. As with the online space and direct marketing, it is not possible to opt out of such adverts. That makes it hard for those with personal experience of problem gambling to follow the sports they previously enjoyed, and it is hard for parents to know the best way to protect their children from harm.
In that context, we need the sports sponsorship code of conduct to be published. That code, required by the Government’s White Paper and led by sports governing bodies, would recognise that the relationship between gambling and sports needs to be conducted responsibly in order to prevent gambling harm in both sportspeople and sports fans. I understand that it will be based on the principles of reinvestment, sporting integrity, protecting children and vulnerable people and socially responsible promotion. In practice, it could include things such as a requirement that replica kits be available without gambling logos, a commitment to reinvest sponsorship funds into grassroot activities, the use of sponsorship to promote safer gambling messages and the protection of those in family areas in stadiums from being able to see gambling advertising.
I understand that as part of the development process there will initially be one main code to cover all sporting bodies, and after that each governing body will be able to develop a short sport-specific code, whether it be for racing, cricket, football or others. However, there has been no sign of the main code, let alone the sport-specific commitments. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will call on the governing bodies to publish the codes without further delay, perhaps in time for the first anniversary of the White Paper. That is something that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended in its report published last year, to which the Government have yet to respond. That is a concern, because without the code the White Paper seems to hardly address the relationship between gambling and sport. It is only through a combination of measures, from giving the Gambling Commission powers to crack down on the black market to restricting bonus and free bet offers, that we will bring our regulation into the modern age and better protect people from harm.
There is no question but that gambling advertising on the whole has increased in the past two decades. The impact of gambling harms could be better understood and researched. That is one reason why I would like to see the statutory levy for gambling get under way soon, so that levy funds can be used to conduct the research needed to aid effective prevention and treatment methods going forward. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister provided an update on the levy consultation and when the Government might expect to publish a response.
To conclude, I hear the concerns about the impact of gambling advertising in sport on children and young people, as well as those vulnerable to harm. Given the reliance of many sports on gambling sponsorship for revenue, it is crucial that the governing bodies reflect on that relationship and issue their code of conduct as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will reaffirm his commitment to ensuring that the code is published, and to the implementation of the White Paper more broadly.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I note that the hon. Lady began her speech by referring to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but she did not expand on that at all. People who are following this debate, and others like it, need to be informed about the nature of those interests; would the hon. Lady like to spell out them out?
Stephanie Peacock
I have previously taken hospitality from the gambling industry. I would have to check the dates to say specifically which body it was, but I am happy to inform the House at a later date if needed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for securing this important debate. His SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), complained that his hon. Friend is pinching part of his constituency; as someone whose entire constituency is to be abolished, I certainly have some sympathy.
In all seriousness, it is important that we are having this debate, which raises the issue at a crucial moment in the Government’s commitment to tackling gambling harms. I thank all those who have contributed for their thoughtful comments. It has been valuable for me to hear the range of perspectives. Indeed, in my time as the gambling Minister I have welcomed the constructive engagement we have had, because I am keen to hear from all sides. I recognise that many people gamble safely, but equally I am always mindful of the families—I think we have all met them—who have gone through some of the most unimaginable pain.
The Government recognise the concerns that many have raised about the presence and impact of gambling advertising in general, and particularly in sport. Gambling advertising clearly remains an issue of vibrant debate, and rightly so. Colleagues have raised it with me directly and in the media since I took on the gambling brief just over a year ago. The debate on advertising encapsulates the balance we are aiming to strike on gambling regulation. We are looking at regulating an innovative and responsible gambling industry on the one hand, and at the duty of the Government to protect children and the wider public from gambling-related harm on the other.
As colleagues have mentioned, developments in technology have undoubtedly led to rapid changes in the gambling landscape. The smartphone era comes with risks and opportunities, so we need to strike the balance between freedom and protection. That is why we committed to a root-and-branch review of gambling legislation. We took an exhaustive look at the best available evidence, including on advertising, as part of our Gambling Act review. The White Paper that we published in April last year captures our vision for the sector, with a robust package of reforms aiming to mitigate the risks of gambling-related harm and seize the opportunities to prevent it as early as possible.
It has been said that we sidestepped the issue of advertising. I think that is slightly unfair. The evidence-led action on advertising forms an important part of that vision. The liberalisation of gambling advertising was one of the major changes introduced in the Gambling Act 2005, and we have undoubtedly witnessed the continual growth of gambling marketing since then. However, it is important to note that we have not seen an increase in gambling participation rates or population gambling harm rates over the same timeframe. Those have remained broadly the same. None the less, I recognise that a parallel change has been the increasingly visible integration of gambling advertising with sport. That is especially relevant to me as the Minister responsible for sport, alongside civil society.
In our Gambling Act review, we considered evidence that gambling brands provided 12% of sport sponsorship revenue. Gambling brands are most strongly present in top-tier football, as has been mentioned, where eight out of 20 premier league teams this season have front-of-shirt gambling sponsors. In fact, gambling sponsors contribute around £45 million a year across the English Football League’s three leagues, and a significantly higher proportion of revenue in the Scottish football leagues, as the hon. Member for Inverclyde mentioned. Gambling sponsorship also represents a significant source of income for sports other than football, with around £80 million in sponsorship revenue.
We know that sponsorship by gambling firms can have a level of impact on gambling behaviour. The Gambling Commission’s consumer journey research shows that seeing sponsorship is a “passive influence” on gambling behaviour, although it is far less influential than winning a significant amount of money or hearing about someone else’s big win. The evidence to date therefore shows that while gambling advertising around sport is widely noticed, it has a background effect when it comes to having an impact on gambling behaviour.
Paul Blomfield
I accept that the Minister is making an argument with integrity, but if advertising has such a marginal impact, why does he think the gambling industry spends so much on it?
Stuart Andrew
We have had this discussion before. One of the reasons that our White Paper has landed as well as it could do in a challenging policy area is that it has been developed through use of the very best evidence. I will come on to that point later, because I think there is further work to be done in this field.
The industry’s whistle-to-whistle ban has cut the number of pre-9 pm betting adverts to around a quarter of their previous level, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) mentioned, and further cut the average number of sports betting adverts seen by children to just 0.3 per week. None the less, we also know that gambling sponsorship is one of the main ways children are exposed to gambling, and that gambling marketing can have a disproportionate impact on those already experiencing gambling harm. That is why the advertising rules have been strengthened since October 2022. Content that has a strong appeal for children, such as that involving top-flight footballers, and that creates a sense of urgency to gamble is banned from appearing in gambling adverts. This measure further protects children and vulnerable adults.
Following on from the gambling White Paper, we are in the process of implementing a comprehensive suite of protections, ranging from action on advertising, products and the way that gambling is provided to prevent gambling-related harms. In line with existing gambling advertising rules, as has already been mentioned, the Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms will commence by the end of the 2025-26 season.
I can also confirm that a cross-sport code of conduct for gambling sponsorship has been agreed by a number of the country’s major sports governing bodies, from the Premier League and the English Football League to the British Horseracing Authority, the England and Wales Cricket Board and others. Indeed, the Rugby Football League sought to build in the code’s provisions as part of its renewed agreement with Betfred. This landmark code fulfils a key commitment from the White Paper ahead of schedule, and will bind all domestic sports governing bodies to four core principles. First, all sports will ensure socially responsible promotion. Education and awareness will form a key part of all sports’ marketing activities, including in stadiums.
Ronnie Cowan
The Minister has just acknowledged the need to build education support. Will he acknowledge the fact of the potential damage that has been done by this product in the first place? The gambling industry cannot have it both ways; these companies are causing the damage and at the same time painting themselves as the good guys because they are helping to support people out of addiction. They cannot own both organisations.
Stuart Andrew
As I said, I will come on to further research that I feel we need to do, but I want also to emphasise that we are trying to do a considerable amount of work here as part of the wider White Paper reforms. In essence, we are trying to deal with 15 years of digital progress, which is quite significant.
At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the team over at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They are working extremely hard to meet the commitment we made to get the majority of the code done by the summer of this year, recognising that its implementation will have the greatest impact on tackling gambling harm.
The second core principle is the protection of children and vulnerable people. Sponsorship has to be designed to limit reach to children and those at risk of gambling harm, and this will see adult replica kits, as was mentioned, available without the front-of-shirt gambling logo.
The third principle is one of reinvestment into sport. The commercial income raised from gambling sponsorship will provide grassroots services that genuinely serve fans and communities.
Finally, the code will ensure that gambling sponsorship maintains sport integrity. Sponsorship arrangements will build in appropriate requirements that they do not compromise the integrity of sporting competitions nor harm the welfare of participants. Together, those principles will establish a robust minimum standard for gambling sports sponsorship across all sports.
Of course, commercial arrangements and fan-bases differ across the industry, and that is why individual sports governing bodies will also introduce bespoke arrangements to fulfil these principles in a way that is tailored to maximise their impact. Some sports, including football, intend to have their arrangements in place as early as this year ahead of the next season. Ultimately, this will guarantee that, where gambling sponsorship does appear, it is done in a responsible way and that fans, especially children, are better protected.
There is no single intervention that effectively prevents gambling-related harm, and that is why we have taken an evidence-led approach to implement a package of reforms targeted at different levels, including advertising. We absolutely recognise that advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those experiencing gambling harms. Technological advances and developments and the increasing dominance of online gambling have necessitated a doubling of efforts from us as a Government. We and the Gambling Commission are now taking targeted action to ban harmful practices and to ensure that advertising remains socially responsible wherever it appears.
The commission has recently consulted on strengthened protections to ensure that free bets and bonuses are constructed in a way that does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling, and that is in conjunction with new rules to give consumers more control over the direct gambling marketing they wish to receive. Together, the measures will empower customers and prohibit harmful marketing practices to further prevent the risk of gambling harms. The commission will set out its response to the consultation in due course.
Our holistic approach also includes action on the products themselves. We recently announced the introduction of stake limits in online slot games, as was mentioned, where we have seen evidence of elevated levels of harmful gambling. But we are also pursuing broader protections, such as financial risk checks and further strengthening restrictions on game design. I am clear that effective and innovative collaboration to get the right mix of interventions for the population as a whole and those with specific needs is required to tackle this issue.
Evidence has been a key theme in this debate, and I want to end in recognising that further work is needed in this area. A concerted effort to build the evidence base to ensure policy and regulation are able to deal with the emerging issues is paramount, and the Gambling Commission’s important work on the gambling survey for Great Britain aligns with this priority. The survey will in time provide us with a better picture of gambling behaviour and the nature of gambling-related harm.
However, developing quality evidence is also a key priority for the Government’s statutory levy. Increased and ring-fenced funding will be directed towards high-quality, independent research into gambling and gambling-related harms, including on advertising. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear at the launch of the White Paper, if new evidence suggests that we need to go further, we will look at this again.
I again thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde for securing this important debate and all the Members who made valuable contributions. I am committed to tackling gambling-related harms and I am confident that the action we are taking will have a real impact in reducing those harms across the country. The new levy will provide us with even more evidence. As I have already committed, if further action is needed we will look at it again.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank everybody who has taken the time and effort to be here today and spoken so well, and I thank the Minister for being here. I understand the hard work that staff are putting into resolving the gambling issues that we have. We all have constituents that are damaged and families that have been torn apart. I am sure that in some cases individuals have committed suicide because of their gambling addiction. It is not always obvious because gambling addiction tends to be a hidden addiction.
I did the Big Step and Gambling with Lives walk—I have done it a number of times. The last time one of the guys came up to me during the walk and said, “If I was an alcoholic and my local landlord came to my door at night and said, ‘Have a case of beer, have a bottle of whisky, have a bottle of gin’, people would think that behaviour reprehensible. I am a recovering gambling addict and people still send me adverts saying, “Do you want a free bet? Do you want five bets on this?” It is exactly the same thing.
I thank all the organisations and individuals that have helped me gain a better understanding of the situation, none more so than Martin Paterson. As a recovering gambling addict, he sent me a message today. He said,
“Can I add, as a person in recovery like millions of others over the years the ads are triggering so many back into the hole of gambling addiction.”
Martin, stay strong. We will keep up the fight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gambling advertising in sport.
5G Masts: Greater Manchester
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of 5G mast installations on communities in Greater Manchester.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and appreciate the time given by those who are here today and by the Minister who will reply to the debate.
The debate covers the powers given to telecommunication companies to instal infrastructure on and around a public highway in residential areas, and covers the roll-out of 5G and wireless broadband through masts, cabinets and telegraph poles across Greater Manchester. For Oldham, that includes installations primarily by IX Wireless, BT and Vodafone.
The British people work hard to provide a good life for themselves and their families. Many are first or second-generation homeowners, investing everything they have to form a community with others who share the same hopes, fears and determination to make it the best it can be. Those very places, however, are seeing change across the board, on the matter we are here to talk about, but also the loss of local pubs, too often being converted to houses in multiple occupation, and even family homes lost to the same use. There is a decline of many high streets and town centres and loss of community facilities that ought to bind people together.
Rather than giving people power in the places where they live, the past 14 years have seen power taken away from communities. It is that issue, perhaps known only to those who are impacted directly, that must be addressed. We are here to discuss the installation of equipment, whether 5G or wireless broadband, and I shall cover three main areas: first, planning policy and permitted development; secondly, guidance on the siting of cabinets and poles; and thirdly, access to the existing network. On planning policy and permitted development, I ask Members to imagine a 15-metre mast and cabinets being placed outside their home.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I thank my fellow Greater Manchester MP for raising such an important debate. I have residents in Astley Bridge, Bradshaw, Harwood, Bromley Cross and Egerton who are royally peeved off about the installation of some of these masts, which are going up around the constituency. As the hon. Member said, they can be 15 metres high, looking like something out of a North Korean military base. My residents are completely opposed to this. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government and these providers, such as IX Wireless, need to listen more to residents, and should go through a consultation process?
Jim McMahon
I share entirely those concerns about the impact. I will come on to some of the interventions we made in Oldham to try to bridge that divide on consultation, communication and co-production.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this forward. To support him and his claim, to which others have referred, I can give an example from back home. In Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, the very same issue has arisen. It involves health and safety concerns about the installation of these masts, as residents felt there was a lack of consultation. I understand that we all need 5G, but does the hon. Member agree that we need better communication from local planners on installation and the safety of masts that have been approved? That is what the hon. Member wants, and that is what we want back home.
Jim McMahon
That is the crux of the issue. Not many people object in principle to the installation of new equipment that makes life easier and better for people. Connectivity in the digital age is important for that, but how it is done is critical to garnering community support.
I want to paint a picture of what this means. Imagine someone sitting in the house they have worked hard for, where they are raising their children and where they have put down roots. It could be a normal two-storey house. The proposal is to erect a 15-metre mast outside. In context, that is the height of four double-decker buses stacked on top of one another. The cabinets that go alongside them are as tall as a standing adult. These are huge installations on residential streets, on cul-de-sacs, and on corners where people live. People are quite rightly concerned about the impact of that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way; he is making a very powerful speech and I congratulate him on it. He represents Oldham West while I represent Oldham East, and this is also an issue across Oldham East, going from Shaw up to Grasscroft. Indeed, it is a massive issue. One constituent I called on said that literally overnight a mast had appeared at the end of their garden.
Will my hon. Friend support our right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has introduced a private Member’s Bill on this issue that is scheduled for discussion next week? She is trying to get Government support to ensure that there is mandatory consultation before such masts are erected.
Jim McMahon
Absolutely—I recognise the impact of these masts. I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) about her private Member’s Bill, which is scheduled for debate. The general view is that it is quite far down the Order Paper and it would require the Government to lend their support for it to progress it. I believe that there is cross-party support for such a measure. Across the political spectrum, there is a need to address the imbalance affecting local people, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter.
The wi-fi companies are not doing anything that is not allowed or permitted by the Government—that is the point. These changes were introduced in 2019 in the national planning policy framework, which has created this permitted development. The impact has been the complete removal of the requirement to seek prior permission from the local authority, along with the public consultation that would go alongside that.
Operators not only have free rein on the siting of masts but, with the permissions that are in place, they can also send cables over people’s homes with a clearance of just 2 metres without requiring any further permissions or legal agreement. Someone can have a mast erected outside their home and the cable can go across their roof, and they have no legal right to stop that at all, because it is all permitted development and it is all licensed under the regulator.
The reality is that councils are left powerless and communities are left voiceless. On the siting of cabinets and poles, the House of Commons Library is clear:
“The Government’s 2016 cabinet and pole siting code of practice states that companies should consult with local residents, but it is entirely voluntary. Broadband companies are not legally required to follow the code of practice and Ofcom, the regulator, does not have the power to enforce it.”
Councils are left powerless, communities are left voiceless and the regulator is left without the power to regulate.
Moreover, we know that there is scope to upgrade the current 4G masts rather than having additional 5G ones. Working in this way would minimise the disruption caused by new installations. This has been the case with, say, BT locally in Oldham.
What about shared use? What many people find staggering is how weak the requirement for shared networks and facilities really is. First, the requirement to share existing equipment only rests with BT Openreach; in areas such as ours, where there is cable, it does not rest with Virgin Media, with what was then the 9X network or with any other new operators coming into the market. The operators themselves say that that is nonsense. Why not allow just one 15-metre mast, rather than a second, or a third, to go alongside it, because under these rules it is not just one operator that can instal equipment? Another one can come along, then another one, and another one, and there is no requirement at all to make them work together so that they share the equipment that is installed. The operators say that is wrong and I think local people say it is wrong too.
What happens if any one of these companies, or all of these companies, go bust? Who would be responsible for the legacy equipment that is then left on the highway? The fact is that the responsibility falls to the local council, which had no say in the equipment being installed to begin with, but which now has the financial liability placed on it to deal with the aftermath.
We also need to consider the rapid pace of change in technology. SpaceX is significantly reducing the cost of its Starlink satellite system, and other companies will follow—none of us knows today what practical commercial lifespan the current 5G masts and fixed wireless units will have in the future, given the rate of technological change and the technology that is coming down the line.
The community impact is heavy for many people in Greater Manchester, including constituents of mine in Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton. Many of the 5G masts installed by Vodafone, for instance, are on main roads or junctions, but that is not always the case. The masts are large and they change the character of an area. For instance, at Chadderton Hall Park, where the installation abuts a children’s play area and community café, no effort whatsoever was made to minimise the impact on visual amenity, so houses that once looked out on a very beautiful park across the road now look out on the huge telephone equipment that has been installed.
However, it has to be said that most complaints in Oldham West, Chadderton and Royston relate to IX Wireless broadband installations. Some of those are up to 15 metres high, and mast installations do not require any kind of prior planning approval from the council.
I have raised the issue constantly and have pushed for change. I reached out to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in April last year, but did not even receive a response on this important issue. That fuelled the mistrust that is already there in the local community. It was central Government who brushed local communities to one side and ignored legitimate representations from MPs, but it did not help—I will be blunt about this—that the same company was recently reported to have paid donations of £138,000 to 24 Tory MPs in the region. At a point when we should be rebuilding trust in politics, things like that undermine that effort.
My approach is always that we have to bring competing interests together to find common ground. On that issue, we have to find a way that balances the need to expand connectivity with the need to bring local people on board. I wrote to Oldham Council and IX Wireless asking for intervention and a different approach. I will be honest that it was not without challenges, as is often the case with these things, but eventually we got an agreement on a more inclusive way forward, first by working through sites that were of concern. In July, we held a meeting with the support of my fantastic constituency staff in Chadderton town hall, where we held a residents workshop to arbitrate between the two sides. I am grateful to BBC Radio Manchester for reporting on the same issue late last year. The workshop gave an opportunity for residents to meet IX Wireless and go through its impacts site by site. Some changes were made, such as using more underground cabling, relocating cabinets and masts or removing the need for them at all.
Mark Logan
The hon. Member is being generous in giving way again. We have been successful on a couple of occasions in relocating the masts, with one example in Bradshaw recently, but unfortunately it was moved only 50 metres. We have to keep constant pressure on IX Wireless. The same is true in Egerton, where Councillor Nadim Muslim was successful in ensuring that a pole was not erected there. What level of success has the hon. Member had in ensuring that since July’s meetings the masts are not placed where residents do not want them?
Jim McMahon
The approach we tried to take was, where possible, to use the underground ducting that was there through the BT Openreach system. We were able to remove some masts and cabinets completely because of that. Residents were clearly delighted that the proposed cabinet was eventually withdrawn. In some cases, we were able to move a mast around the corner if that meant it would be near a garage site, rather than outside somebody’s living room window. It would still be in the locality, but at least its impact would be diminished.
In other cases, where equipment could not be moved at all, we even got an agreement to paint it the colour of the background—if it was against a wall to paint it the colour of the wall, or if it was by a park to paint it green like the park—or even to be creative. We have suggested to IX Wireless that Royton has a proud history of remembering its veterans, and the British Legion in Royton have done a fantastic job pulling together the histories of servicemen who lost their lives in the second world war. The company is open to vinyl-wrapping some of the cabinets that cannot be moved to commemorate the sacrifice people made for our freedom. If we can secure a compromise like that, we can bring people with us.
In the end, some people just do not want this equipment outside their home, and that is difficult, but we should always try to find common ground. What I struggle with is that the system is almost designed to write local people out of the process. At a time when there is so much mistrust in politics and politicians, we should be using every opportunity to bring people together in the same room to work through these difficult issues together. Hopefully I have explained what we were able to do in my constituency, thanks to the hard work of my staff and the willingness of the operator and the local authority, but it should not be voluntary. We should have that hard-wired into what we do.
We have been able to make a degree of progress. The law does not require prior approval, but we have managed to get an agreement with IX Wireless and Oldham Council that they will apply as if they were required to have it. They will make the application and give the notice, and the public consultation that would be natural and normal in a planning application will take place as part of that process. Even though it is not required, we see that process under way in Oldham. It is important that a consultation is genuine, and not just an admin process that does not deliver the outcome that local people want. It must be seen as a partnership.
There remains work to be done. Although we have made progress, I urge IX Wireless to remove, relocate or redesign the remaining contentious proposed installations, including one on Denbydale Way in Royton, where local people have a legitimate concern about its implications and disruption to the street scene in that area. Digital inclusion should enhance communities and bring people together. It should not increase tensions and hurt our neighbourhoods. Consistent Conservative top-down implementation has to change, and community power must be respected—not to block, but to build the future together.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for arranging this debate on a huge issue that is impacting so many of our constituents in Greater Manchester. He has already made important points about the technicality of the law on this issue, and how changes to permitted developments have caused chaos on the streets of Bolton and across our borough.
I have been raising my concerns about poorly sited, low-quality masts and wooden poles placed across Bolton since 2019. They are tall, ugly monstrosities, blighting our landscape and causing much distress to my constituents. It has become a case of whack-a-mole, with the masts, boxes and poles popping up everywhere; we get one re-sited, and another appears in a different area. We have had them placed on private land, on dangerous road bends and right up against residents’ walls, making access for essential pointing impossible.
All that causes huge distress and a sense of powerlessness for our local residents. Indeed, in my Saturday drop-in advice surgery last week I had a constituent come and talk about a recent installation placed so near his side wall that, if there was a problem with his wall, he would have to break down the whole wall to repair it. The companies do not give any warning that works are going to commence in the area. There is no consultation done with anyone. The first people see of it is these stupid, horrendous things outside their homes.
The main point I want to emphasise to the Minister is the economic value of allowing all those companies to dig up our roads and pavements without any oversight. I have written letters and asked the Minister several times whether the Government track the commercial viability of the companies that they have allowed to place infrastructure on private land. The reply is always, “No.” The Government are not even collecting data on whether the policy of permitted development is driving the growth it was meant to, whether any of the companies sticking up those ugly things are commercially viable, or whether they are using technology that is viable even in the short term. Many argue that the appearance of these things suggests that they are not exactly at the cutting edge of industry innovation.
In Bolton, for our part, we do not need or want these installations. Bolton is well served by broadband providers, and we already have ample coverage in our area. We do not need the masts. I do not think the public of Bolton will forgive those who have allowed companies free rein to blight our landscape for no economic benefit, other than someone somewhere making a quick buck. I urge the Minister to revisit this, and, if there are going to be any such placements, to ensure that there is a proper consultation, with permission to be given before they are installed.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope we will not be interrupted by votes. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this debate on the impact of 5G connectivity on communities in Greater Manchester. I am grateful for the attendance of his constituency neighbours. It is very useful to hear what is happening on the ground, and it sounds as though there is some very good partnership work going on, thanks to the hon. Gentleman’s efforts to get the council, the community and the provider to work together more productively.
Mark Logan
Like the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), we feel like a whack-a-mole team in Bolton North East: councillors Toby Hewitt, Hilary Fairclough and Mudasir Dean have to go out every week or month to try to whack the mole. It is great that we are having this debate, and I hope the Department will consider reviewing the current legislative measures to ensure much more consultation with the providers, especially IX Wireless in my constituency. These massive masts going up are almost like a middle finger to the local community, to consultation and to a peaceful living environment.
Julia Lopez
It sounds as though my hon. Friend has some very hard-working councillors. I commend them for their efforts, but they should not have to play whack-a-mole; that is very time-intensive and likely unnecessary.
As Minister, I am trying to establish the extent of the problem. I know it is an issue in pockets of the country—the number of Greater Manchester MPs here today is testimony to that. Although this debate is about a specific area, there is also a challenge in relation to the whole area. Reference was made to the private Member’s Bill tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and to specific issues with the way the market operates in the Kingston upon Hull area. It seems that there are also particular challenges in Greater Manchester with specific operators. I am holding a roundtable with colleagues next week, I believe, and I hope we will get a better sense of how geographically widespread this issue is, and whether we need to take action against particular providers or deal with specific issues on the ground, particularly in Hull. When I meet Ofcom next week, I hope to discuss this issue in some detail.
I will set out the general policy aim, and then the next steps that we will take to address communities’ concerns. It is absolutely right that they are addressed, because this is not what we want to happen. There is an overall and well-supported policy aim on connectivity, and we do not want the broad support for the connectivity agenda to be undermined by bad practice. As the House knows, reliable, fast digital connectivity is vital for the prosperity of our country. We are working hard to ensure communities across the UK can get those services at prices they can afford.
That is not just about connectivity needs now; increasingly, healthcare will be delivered in a technologically enabled way, more education will be provided in that way and so will economic opportunities. For me, it is important that we ensure every part of the country has fantastic connectivity. I do not want a digital divide to emerge.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton said that this issue is disempowering for communities, but that is precisely the opposite of our intention. The policy intention is to empower communities by ensuring they have the infrastructure they need. I do not want them to feel that this is leading to a deterioration of the overall amenity of their areas.
Jim McMahon
I think there is agreement on the need for the roll-out of digital connectivity; that is a welcome investment. The frustration for local people and the industry is that there is not co-ordination across Government. I had a call earlier today with a provider that would love nothing more than to install the devices in the lamp post infrastructure that is already in place on the streets, but cannot do so because it cannot get an agreement here or through the local authority. That would seem very logical. We need to look at charging points for electric vehicles and wireless connectivity, and that requires joined-up thinking from the Government on making best use of what we already have.
Julia Lopez
That was an interesting intervention. I have never discussed the idea of sharing lamp posts or infrastructure of that nature. Not long after becoming Minister in this policy area, I put through the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, whose intention was to make it easier to share existing infrastructure, to crack open some of the telecoms monopolies and allow new companies and new entrants to provide connectivity. Community connectivity was falling behind because of that monopoly interest, and ultimately there has been a much faster roll-out.
The whole intention is for that roll-out to be done, not through new poles, new masts and all the rest—notwithstanding the fact that they will be required in some areas—but through much better sharing of existing infrastructure. I will take away the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton about other types of infrastructure.
Jim McMahon
The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. On that point, the Act in itself was a good piece of work, with the exception of the guidance that followed, which essentially allowed the sharing requirement to be one of request and then consideration, rather than requiring it to happen. The Government should be more directive and say, “No, if it’s there, you ought to use it together.”, rather than just asking for people to have a conversation about it.
Julia Lopez
I do not want to mislead the House in any way. My understanding is that there are requirements on some companies, particularly Openreach, for infrastructure sharing. That is not universal, and we may come to review that in the future. I want to set out the overall success levels, because I do not want this debate to be about only the negative side. Ultimately, the 2022 Act has driven roll-out, but, as I alluded to, it is just that there are particular problems in particular geographical areas where I think we need to be doing something, whether that is ensuring that infrastructure in Hull is better shared or addressing the particular operators acting in a way that is certainly not the intention of the code and guidance.
In 2019, 6% of UK premises had access to gigabit-capable broadband. That is now 81%, so we can see there is a massive difference in connectivity. We all understand from the pandemic just how important that connectivity is to people’s life chances. It is effectively akin to a key utility, and we want to ensure that people are not disadvantaged by poor connectivity. I am very proud of that achievement, and we must ensure that infrastructure deployment can continue at pace.
We know that the legislative framework has been supportive of that, and we want operators to be able to install infrastructure quickly, but that is not some kind of one-way street. We must ensure that operators understand that that is not without restriction. The legislation rightly recognises that there can be an impact of network deployment on communities and the environment, and there is a balance to be had and rules to which telecoms companies ought to adhere. Good operators understand that, but I think there is an issue with bad actors and bad examples, which we are very keen to drill down into.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton will be aware of the legislative framework—he spoke about it in some detail. It ensures that the vital infrastructure can be deployed quickly, while ensuring that communities can have their say. That is supported by best practice guidance on where new infrastructure should be placed and how best to limit the impact on the landscape and our streets. The legislation also ensures that either Ofcom or the local planning authority can take enforcement action when either the regulations or the planning rules are not being adhered to. Local planning authorities have powers to take enforcement action where they believe planning regulations are contravened.
I understand that has already happened and is actively underway in some parts of Greater Manchester. I think there is a piece of work to do about helping local authorities to understand how and when they can push back on some of those applications. From the feedback that I have had from local authorities, some of those applications are being put forward by planning consultants rather than the companies themselves, so they do not use that local knowledge or have that accountability.
I am conscious of time, so I will just set out some of the extra steps that we will be taking. As I mentioned, the policy aim now is to ensure that there is better infrastructure. On Monday, I will be meeting Melanie Dawes, the chief executive of Ofcom, to ask that her officials work closely with mine to bring about a swift resolution to some of the challenges raised in this debate and previously. That follows a letter from the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), which asked Ofcom to set out the conditions under which they would take enforcement actions if the regulations are not being adhered to. As I suggested, I will also be holding a roundtable for concerned colleagues on 25 March, and the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is very welcome to join me. I look forward to hearing his constituents’ concerns in more detail, and to picking up some of the issues that he raised that we do not have time to go into today.
We will be working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to support local planning authorities, exploring what extra steps are needed, and I will write this week to operators and their representative bodies to ensure that they are aware how seriously we are taking this and what we expect them to do to minimise unnecessary infrastructure. I hope that provides some assurance on the immediate next steps, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are listening to the concerns raised in this House and we are open to slightly tougher steps if we are dissatisfied with progress. I am conscious of time, so I will wrap up.
Question put and agreed to.
Children’s Cancer Care: South-East
(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children’s cancer care in the South East.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. In 2020, Jackson’s parents received some of the worst news a parent possibly can: Jackson had been diagnosed with leukaemia, at just two years old. He soon began treatment at St George’s Hospital in Tooting; and after three years, in April 2023, he finally rang the bell that signified the end of his treatment. It was a very difficult experience for Jackson, but his family are extremely grateful for the treatment they received at St George’s Hospital. Reflecting on the experience, Jackson’s mum, Samantha, said:
“Thank you St George’s for being such a great hospital and to everyone who works there, you have made our journey so much easier to deal with because you’re the best team.”
Tomorrow, NHS England will make a decision about where to place a new children’s cancer centre, which will serve south-west London and the surrounding areas, such as Surrey, Sussex, Medway and Kent. NHS England will decide between two proposals: one submitted by St George’s Hospital, and the other by the Evelina London Children’s Hospital in Lambeth. After listening to staff, patients and others affected, I am here, with colleagues from both sides of the House, to make the case that children’s cancer care must remain with St George’s.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for making a powerful speech and for referring to Jackson. Does she agree that the independence of NHS England is important, that any decision it makes tomorrow has to be based on the clinical knowledge of medical experts, that the decision must be free from any political interference and that the world-class facilities at Evelina, which the hon. Lady has seen at first hand, should be considered alongside the other hospital? Does she agree that we must ensure that the decision is independent, and that we do not undermine the public reputation of NHS England or put undue pressure on it?
Munira Wilson
This is not about political interference; it is about ensuring that there has been a fair, balanced and transparent process. I will talk about the process in a moment, but that is the concern. The hon. Lady talks about clinical input. The consultation, albeit that it was run in a very flawed way, had 2,500 responses—some were from clinical experts, and many were from patients and their parents—and it provides very strong evidence that St George’s is best placed and that the Evelina has been predetermined. I have nothing against the Evelina, and in fact I was just about to sing its praises, because I have had personal experience.
To make myself clear, the Evelina is a brilliant hospital that does incredibly important work in treating children. My own daughter, who is nine, is currently undergoing treatment at the Evelina and has received outstanding care. This is not about pitting hospital against hospital; it is about looking at the process and the evidence before us. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) has alluded to, I would like to personally thank the medical director at the Evelina, who showed me around its excellent facilities on Monday. However, as I have mentioned, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that, in this case, St George’s is best placed to deliver for this highly specialist cancer service.
Before I come to that evidence, I want to raise serious questions about the decision-making process to date. [Interruption.]
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. I do not know whether there will be just one Division. If there is only one, we will come back in 15 minutes; if there are two, we will come back in 25 minutes.
Munira Wilson
To pick up where we left off, before we look at the evidence and arguments for keeping this precious service at St George’s, I want to raise the serious questions that have been highlighted around the decision-making process that has brought us to this point. NHS England first publicly expressed its preference for the Evelina proposal at the start of last year, long before it had even launched its public consultation. This has raised concerns that NHS England has created a process in which the views of patients, clinicians and patients’ families have not been seriously listened to and taken into account.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The hon. Lady is quite right. I congratulate her on this debate. I have spoken to the Department and NHS England about the process, as there have been real concerns about the scoring and whether that has been based on evidence or preference. There is also real concern that clinical outcomes are not being given quite the highest priority they should be, which will be key if we are looking at the cancer survival rates for young children.
Munira Wilson
Absolutely. There is the point about transparency, the fact that it has been predetermined, and the point about outcomes, which I will touch on briefly in my speech.
In a consultation response submitted by Healthwatch Richmond and Healthwatch Merton, the groups concluded that the consultation design was insufficient because it “fails the legal test” for consultation and appears to have no prospect of altering the decision to award the new service to the Evelina. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister what assessment her Department has made of how NHS England has carried out this process. Further, can she give an absolute assurance to Members that the decision made tomorrow will have been made fairly?
Regardless of the way in which it was carried out, the consultation received over 2,500 responses from affected groups, such as patients, their families, clinicians and professional organisations. Those voices must be heard, and I will seek to ensure that they are. One of the most important themes raised was specialist knowledge and experience of children’s cancer care. It is undeniable that St George’s has invaluable experience to offer: it has already been treating child cancer patients, in partnership with the Royal Marsden, for over a quarter century. Not only is that experience highly valued by patients and their families, but it has resulted in excellent outcomes, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said. According to national data collected from intensive care units, St George’s children’s cancer intensive care outcomes are the best for a large unit in the UK. All the institutional knowledge, specialist expertise and professional networks that have been built over decades risk being lost if cancer care were to move away.
Another key theme that was repeatedly mentioned in responses was that the centre should be conveniently located. Travelling via public transport with a vulnerable and immunosuppressed child is both stressful and very risky, so patients and families have repeatedly stressed that a new centre must be easily accessible by car. Anyone who has lived or worked in central London knows how difficult and unpredictable driving in and out of central London can be. However, located in Tooting, St George’s is much easier to access, and has strong road links to parts of the south-east. That is particularly appreciated by those travelling from afar.
Finally, responses highlighted the importance of having most specialisms on a single site. One service that is particularly vital to child cancer patients is neurosurgery, which is required by one in four of them. Currently, out of the two options, only St George’s offers neurosurgery. According to the Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group, the fact that the Evelina does not currently provide cancer surgery is not an issue that can be resolved quickly, and relocating surgery services comes with associated risks to both patients and staff. In its consultation response, the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons notes that where that has happened in previous cases, a lack of support and structure has resulted in staff “leaving the relocated unit.”
Further, clinicians have shared concerns that, if children’s cancer care were to move from St George’s, other services could be disrupted, which may create unforeseen consequences for the many areas served by St George’s. By contrast, placing the new centre at St George’s would ensure that NHS services are not overly centralised, but rather evenly distributed across the region. What assessment have the Government made of this crucial clinical evidence and the associated potential risks to the cancer service and other children’s services?
The decision is such an important one because at its heart are children with cancer: a group who have dealt with the most challenging and frightening of circumstances so early on in their lives. In many cases, the children can go on to lead full lives. One such example is Zoe, a teenager who was treated by St George’s when she was just four. She has since recovered and now has dreams of becoming a children’s nurse. She says:
“I’m so grateful to the paediatric staff at St George’s Hospital for looking after me, and for always being there for me throughout my life. Thank you to the nurses who told me to follow my dreams and never give up.”
The experience, expertise and convenience that St George’s offers are extremely valued by patients and those who care for them. That must be reflected in the final decision that is made tomorrow, and that is why it is so crucial that no doubt is cast over whether the decision is being made fairly and transparently. Yet, as I have set out, the way that NHS England has handled the process means that it is very difficult to make that judgment at this point.
Last week, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) I wrote to the Secretary of State requesting that she uses her formal powers to call in this decision should NHS England press ahead tomorrow with awarding the children’s cancer service to the Evelina; and a group of cross-party council leaders from across south-west London and Surrey have done the same.
I conclude by urging the Minister in the strongest possible terms to join that call and to support us in saying that this decision must be called in tomorrow if the Evelina is chosen, because of the serious process and clinical arguments that I have laid out today.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Back Bench speeches in this debate will have to finish by 5.38 pm.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this debate. As a constituency MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I am particularly pleased to take part in today’s debate, and I absolutely agree with what has been said so far. Like the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and I have also written to the Secretary of State requesting that this decision be called in.
I do not want to repeat much of what has already been said, as many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to emphasise a few points, particularly the fact that paediatric cancer is incredibly rare and that treating it is a highly specialised service that the NHS provides. I understand that the NHS is concerned about co-locating the deliverables of that care on one site, but as has already been pointed out, and as St George’s keeps saying, that hospital is standing ready to be able to do that. St George’s is investing a lot into its campus, as is the University of London. St George’s stands ready to provide what parents are asking for, and it has 25 years of specialist experience, alongside the Royal Marsden, to do so. Therefore, it would be a mistake to take the decision to move the children’s cancer service to the Evelina.
Like the hon. Member for Twickenham, I am confident that the Evelina is a fantastic hospital with amazing staff and that it does amazing work, but this is about clinical deliverables.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is right: the Evelina is a great hospital. The other point about St George’s is that it not only has a specialism in paediatric cancer; it also has a wider specialism in neonatal and paediatric services. There is a concern that those would be lost if the co-location was based at the Evelina.
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a key concern, which is precisely why we want to avoid that happening.
It is also worth stating that St George’s does not just have 25 years of experience. The data really does speak for itself. It has been rated outstanding by the Care Quality Commission for delivering cancer services for children. St George’s proposal is to consolidate the primary treatment centre on to the St George’s site in a new state-of-the-art children’s cancer wing, delivering outstanding facilities to match the outstanding care already provided. The services that matter most for children with cancer are already available at St George’s. For some 80% of children with cancer, St George’s campus can already provide or is poised to provide key treatments that the Evelina will have to take time to develop.
Through its experience and expertise, St George’s can already deliver what parents say they want. The hospital is reliant on that experience and incredibly rare expertise. Only about 20 paediatric oncology surgeons with that uncommon skill are registered in the UK, and three of them are already at St George’s. Parents have consistently said they would prefer the children’s cancer centre to be outside the city centre, with better parking provision; again, that is something that St George’s is already able to provide. We do not need to wax lyrical about how awful the traffic is in central London—we say that every day anyway as we try to get into work.
Consolidating the children’s cancer services at St George’s will be easier and less costly for the NHS to deliver. A large part of the service is already there and the existing non-clinical space can, at relative speed, be transformed into a new state-of-the-art cancer centre. But beyond the financial impact of the individual institution we are talking about, there will be wider costs to the NHS as a whole if it is relocated. St George’s has estimated those costs to be around £2.5 million in the first year alone if the service is moved. That could have an impact on other children’s services, and indeed wider services, that are at St George’s at the moment.
Children’s cancer is distressing, but it is also, from a clinical perspective, not neat or stand-alone and addressing it requires incredible skill. The expert staff supporting these children could end up leaving St George’s Hospital and that would weaken the multidisciplinary teams who are there.
Now, with the increasing investment in the campus—with City, University of London, and St George’s, University of London, having agreed to merge and develop ambitious plans for the campus—the opportunities are stronger still. That is not to mention the expansion of the Institute of Cancer Research in the London Borough of Sutton, which we are so excited to see, and the development of a new acute facility. We have the ability to turn south-west London into a world-leading hub for cancer services, beating the United States in a sense. This is incredible news; we need to be grasping this opportunity, so taking the service away would be a huge mistake.
Given all this, I fail to see a compelling reason why the Evelina would provide better care for children in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington and further afield. Accordingly, I request that the Secretary of State consider using her call-in powers to review the decision on a reconfiguration if that is the decision taken tomorrow.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I do not want to take up too much time—I know that lots of people want to say things in this debate—but I would like to speak on behalf of some of the parents and children who have been involved in the consultation. They have made it clear that they want the cancer services to remain at St George’s Hospital—as we would imagine—for practical reasons and particularly transport and parking.
It is St George’s that offers dedicated parking spaces and a drop-off zone directly outside the entrance of the proposed new state-of-the-art children’s cancer centre. We can just look at Angela’s case to see how critical that is. A children’s nurse at St George’s, she has cared for hundreds of kids during her decades-long career, but her worst fears were realised when her own teenage daughter was diagnosed with cancer. Angela has been staunchly opposed to plans to move the services. She said:
“I can’t imagine travelling to Central London for cancer care with a vulnerable child is in anyone’s…interest.
Luckily we were able to drive to St George’s when Meg was here, and for our family it was invaluable. We were able to keep some semblance of normality.”
This is not just about Megan and Angela. Philip has a 10-year-old son, Daniel, who has just finished cancer treatment and spent countless days and nights at St George’s. Philip said:
“You can’t use public transport when your child is immuno-suppressed, and I can’t imagine having to drive into central London every time Daniel needed urgent care.”
Little Jackson Hall was diagnosed with leukaemia in February 2020 after a rash appeared on his skin and would not go away. He was treated by an “amazing team” at St George’s. His dad, Shaun, said:
“If we had to transfer to Evelina it would be added stress and worry and take away what we can give to Jackson.
When we come here there’s a network and protocols in place and it takes the weight off us knowing that we have that here.
If he has a temperature the protocol is to get Jackson to St George’s or the…Marsden within an hour so being forced to go further into central London means there’ll be traffic and nowhere to park and we might not make it in an hour.”
Shaun summed up my thoughts when he said:
“Why change something that’s not broken?”
The services are excellent. They provide a service more cheaply than the proposed changes would. Leave things alone. Let children’s cancer care stay at St George’s.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on obtaining this debate. It is a little interesting that we are having it before we have got the report. We cannot really add to or comment on the report, because we do not have it, but one thing that we will all agree on is that there is no doubt that a centre is required, so, like everybody here, I am waiting for the report with considerable interest.
I listened to the story from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) about Jackson. It is always a delight to hear these stories—cancer treated by St George’s, with a delightful story to follow it. Equally, however, every hospital that I know of that treats cancer and children’s cancer has similar stories, and St George’s has more than just the few that she has given.
I am a huge supporter of St George’s Hospital. As Members will know, I spent a considerable number of years on its health board when St George’s was being rationalised, reorganised and rebuilt. St George’s is world-class in many respects, although not all, right across the spectrum of medical treatment. The rebuilding that taken place at St George’s has centred on making the buildings as welcoming as is feasible for adults and children and for medical and surgical care. I know St George’s well; it is a delightful, functioning national health service hospital that gives much to our community and that will, if the hon. Member for Twickenham has her way, give much to the whole south-east.
However, access to St George’s is by tube and then by foot or by bus. If someone goes by car, they then have to hope they can park. Hon. Members have said that parking spaces are easily available, but I can remember sitting for ages in the car park at St George’s, especially in the morning, and not being able to park. Some of the consultants I know at St George’s drive in hours early just to get a space for their car in the consultants’ car park. So parking at St George’s is not as simple as has been said.
Public transport to St George’s from many areas of the south-east would be a nightmare. Those coming from the coast would have difficulty; they would not even know where Tooting is, let alone St George’s in Tooting.
Sir Paul Beresford
I apologise to the hon. Lady. I will write to people who say they do not know where Tooting is to explain, and I will give them a picture of her.
I have also got to know the Evelina hospital, which is an absolutely amazing place. It is not designed and built for adults; it is designed and built for children. When you walk in the front door, it strikes you that it is a children’s hospital. You immediately go into a tall, spacious atrium, which goes right up, floor after floor after floor—I hope the hon. Member for Twickenham went up and looked down into it when she visited. It is a magnificent building, and one whole floor has been left, waiting for building, in case the report comes forward and says that the Evelina is the choice for the cancer centre. The Evelina also sits next to St Thomas’ Hospital and has access to it. There are specialist carers, along the lines people have been talking about, from St Thomas’ Hospital if required.
It is correct that anyone travelling to the Evelina has to come into central London. Driving in is a problem but, as I understand it, the hospital is prepared to provide specific parking. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned specific parking at St George’s, so the two hospitals are doing the same thing. For special cases, the Evelina will provide special cars for individual patients.
We await the report. It will put the cases together, and we will see what the experts say. I am the nearest thing to an expert here, which is a great big smile, but I have treated children, and treating children, especially east end children, is an art. That is why I would like us to look very strongly at the Evelina if it comes through as the choice. It would be best for kids, and kids are who we are looking at now—kids with cancer and the accumulated diseases and conditions that go with cancer. I am sorry to disagree with just about everyone here at the moment—I emphasise “at the moment”—but, as far as I am concerned, the Evelina is the choice, and I await the report.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate. I should declare an interest of sorts, because my disabled son, John, has been treated at both these hospitals. A few years ago, he had a very successful operation at St George’s, and for most of the last two years he has been attending a weekly clinic at the Evelina. My wife and I are grateful to both hospitals; they are both excellent hospitals, and we regard them very highly. So the fact that I strongly believe that NHS England should choose St George’s is no reflection on the Evelina—not in the slightest.
I have approached this issue from the start by looking at the facts, talking to clinical experts and listening to both sides. I have also looked at the risks of each of the options, because that is what we really look at when we take big decisions: which is the least risky option to make sure we have the quality of services? I have looked at the facts and the evidence, and talked to clinical experts, and they suggest to me that St George’s is easily the less risky option for locating these specialist children’s cancer services—for my constituents and for people across south London, Surrey, Sussex and beyond.
I want to take everyone through some individual cancers and how risks lay for those. I will start with neurosurgery. Twenty-five per cent of children with cancer have a brain or spinal tumour, and many of those will need neurosurgery. St George’s currently delivers that; the Evelina does not. The Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group, which is the UK’s professional association for those involved in the treatment of children with cancers, said in response to the public consultation that if the Evelina was the option chosen, it
“would be the only Principal Treatment Centre in the UK where neurosurgery is not carried out on site”—
the only one—and that there is
“evidence that suggests that Principal Treatment Centres for childhood cancers should be co-located with neurosurgery.”
In other words, with respect to neurosurgery, the Evelina option is the most risky. The Evelina’s solution to that—to use King’s—defeats the purpose of uniting children’s cancer services.
Let us move to oncology surgery. Another 15% of children with cancer will have a neuroblastoma, renal tumour or germ cell tumour. Those children often require major surgery by a paediatric oncology surgeon to remove or reduce the tumour. That expertise is rare. There are around 20 such surgeons in the country, three of whom are at St George’s. The Evelina does not have that expertise at all and will need either to rely on surgeons from St George’s going to work at the Evelina or to build a new surgical team from scratch.
If St George’s surgeons were to travel to the Evelina to operate on children with cancer, there would remain the question of the wider, non-surgical expertise required to manage those children, including the specific anaesthetic skills. Furthermore, it would be much more challenging to manage post-operative complications. In other words, for oncology surgery, as for neurosurgery, the Evelina option is the most risky.
Let us go on to bone marrow transplants. Another 42% of children with cancer will have leukaemias, other blood cancers or lymphoma. For those children, bone marrow transplants and, increasingly, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment, where a patient’s cells are modified to help fight cancer, are key treatments for any new primary treatment centres to be able to deliver. Those treatments are complex, high risk, heavily regulated and difficult to set up without experience. Indeed, the process to do that probably takes years, not months. St George’s has a bone marrow transplant programme for adults and is accredited to provide CAR-T for adults, so it is well placed to extend that offer to children. The Evelina partnership, including Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals, does not currently have a bone marrow transplant programme and is not accredited to deliver CAR-T. Developing such a programme there and delivering it with the required quality, without the adult service, will cost much, much more and be much, much more challenging.
I could go on with other examples of specific cancer treatments for children, but I will end by focusing on some wider issues where, once again, it is clear that the Evelina option is just more risky. Which of the hospitals has the most experience with paediatric cancer? As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, St George’s has 25 years’ experience of caring for children with cancer. The Evelina does not have the experience of caring for children with cancer—nothing like the experience of St George’s.
On staff, where are the specialist cancer staff currently working, and what would they do if there was a change? There are 432 staff at St George’s who are involved in caring for children with cancer. They are from a wide range of specialities and professions. The vast majority of those staff and the expertise they have built up in caring for children with cancer over the years will not move to the Evelina if the primary treatment centre is moved there. Why? Because most spend only a proportion of their time caring for children with cancer and the majority of their time caring for children with other conditions. St George’s estimates that only four whole-time equivalents, out of 432 staff, would be likely to transfer under TUPE regulations. Not only would the skills be lost, therefore, but they would need to be redeveloped in another group of staff. At a time when the NHS is facing one of its most substantial staffing and skill shortages ever, is that really a risk that NHS England wants to run? That type of basic medical risk analysis points clearly to St George’s being the solution.
But let us look at the financial risk too. NHS England itself has assessed the St George’s proposal as involving lower capital costs—£13.5 million lower—representing better value for money and having a better revenue impact. By 2030-31, the St George’s option would be breaking even, whereas the Evelina option would be running a £2 million-a-year deficit. Even taking into account the charity funding envisaged for the Evelina option, it would cost the NHS £3.5 million more in capital funding than the St George’s option, and the charity funding could presumably be used elsewhere. If the PTC were moved to the Evelina, St George’s would lose the income but would not be able to lose the associated staff. The trust estimates that that would leave a £2.5 million financial gap to close in the first year. Given that NHS finances are under real strain, why take the capital and revenue risk of opting for the most expensive option?
I have listened to the counter-arguments brought forward by the Evelina, some experts and NHS England. A big focus of those arguments is on research into developing new treatments into the future, so let us look at that. Cellular treatments such as CAR-T are likely to be central to the future treatment of children’s cancer. St George’s is accredited and commissioned to provide CAR-T, whereas the Evelina is not. Research into using vaccines to treat cancer is at an early stage, but St George’s, University of London, co-located with St George’s, is an international leader in research into vaccines, infection studies and clinical trials, with the long-term potential for vaccine technology to be developed to support the treatment of cancer. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) was right to point to the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden being in close proximity to St George’s. Again, they are part of the research offer that only St George’s can provide.
To conclude, I think this is a no-brainer. I am staggered that anyone has any doubt about which is the right option. I listened to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), and I take him very seriously. He is a great professional in dentistry—he offered my wife some treatment in a previous debate, and I was grateful for that. He is right that we are all looking in expectation to see what happens with tomorrow’s decision. However, having listened to the experts and spent a lot of time looking at the issue, I just do not think there is any doubt: yes, the Evelina is a fantastic children’s hospital, and my son goes there every week, but it is not an expert in cancer services or in children’s cancer services, which is the point of this decision. St George’s can offer those specialities and the expertise, and it can do it more cheaply and in a more accessible way. It is by far the less risky option. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that I can meet the Health Secretary to discuss this issue, and I look forward to that. I hope that tomorrow, given the arguments set out in this debate and elsewhere, NHS England will decide for St George’s.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I let the right hon. Gentleman finish his speech, but I am told that there are now going to be two Divisions, which means the sitting is suspended for 25 minutes.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
In the absence of the Minister, but with the consent of the hon. Lady about to speak, I call Sarah Olney.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Thank you very much for giving me time to speak; I will not detain hon. Members long.
I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important and extremely timely debate. As she has already highlighted, the Evelina is an excellent facility and I commend the incredible work its doctors do every day. I do, however, share her view that the weight of evidence shows that St George’s Hospital would be a better home for paediatric cancer care in south London and the surrounding counties. I had an excellent experience of in-patient paediatric care there when my daughter was in the Frederick Hewitt Ward for a short period last year. I can confirm that the paediatric care there is excellent, and I would like to say to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that I had no problems with parking any of the times I visited my daughter.
One of the less well-known but most dangerous side effects of cancer treatment is the extreme increase in patients’ susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections. While most children with cancer are able to overcome minor infections, the mortality rate from infection is three times higher in cancer patients than in the general public. Because of that risk, many children living with cancer cannot take public transport or even smaller private hire vehicles. In the most extreme cases, visitors and carers are expected to shield so that they do not bring a risk of infection. Travelling by car is the only option available to many of these young people and their families. As such, any plan to bring paediatric cancer treatment in south London and the surrounding counties under one roof must ensure that certain patients can access the hospital safely.
The point was driven home to me when one of my constituents contacted my office after her daughter was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. During the six months that her daughter received chemotherapy and radiotherapy at University College Hospital, they had to travel from Richmond to the hospital in Euston several times a week for her to receive treatment. Due to the very limited parking at the hospital, and the need to avoid public transport because of the risk of infection, the family were forced to hire taxis to make the journey. Each round trip cost the family close to £100. That is not a unique situation.
On average, the families of children with cancer have to spend £250 and travel 350 miles each month to get their specialist treatment. Three in four struggle to meet those costs, and one in 10 miss or delay their treatment because of the expense. St George’s Hospital has two visitor car parks, and it has presented a plan to create a series of dedicated parking spaces and drop-off zones for the families of children with cancer. [Interruption.]
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. We now have another Division in the House. I put on the record the fact that the Minister has profusely apologised for her absence; she was misled on whether there was going to be a gap between the Divisions. There was a gap, and although we have exploited it as much as we could, it is now time to suspend the sitting again. I am told that there will be two more Divisions, so it will be suspended for another 25 minutes. That means we will start again at 6.27 pm.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I call Sarah Olney, a few minutes early.
Sarah Olney
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I was on the verge of taking an intervention.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady was talking about transport. Yes, the Evelina has amazing facilities, and parents can stay in Ronald McDonald House just opposite. However, the point is that it is easier to get to Tooting by car none the less, especially for people coming from outside London. Patient transport to the Evelina from Brighton takes more time to get into London from the outskirts than from Brighton to the outskirts of London in the first place.
Sir Paul Beresford
I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) gets a new “A to Z”; the journey is not that much more difficult.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but my personal experience is that it is a lot easier to get from anywhere in the surrounding counties to the outskirts of London than from the outskirts of London to central London.
As I was saying, the Evelina’s parking facilities are, in the hospital’s own words, “very limited”. Patients are advised that there is often a queue for parking, which of course can only add to the stress of parents trying to get their children into hospital for urgent treatment. Given that the Evelina sits in central London just over the river from here, I am concerned about its ability to significantly expand parking provision.
The Evelina also sits within the congestion charge zone, meaning that any family member who wishes to visit an in-patient will be charged between £15 and £17.50 every time they come to the hospital. I acknowledge that TfL will reimburse the cost to patients with compromised immune systems, for families visiting on a regular basis who are not covered by the exemption, the expense could become significant; there is also a significant additional administrative burden for those families.
Admission to hospital can be a terrifying prospect for a young person. Parents often take shifts, keeping their child company during an unimaginably difficult time. If each day they drive to and from the ward, they could end up paying more than £100 a week in congestion charges alone. The NHS was founded on the principle that everybody should have easy access to life-saving medical treatment, regardless of their economic circumstances. I believe that St George’s meets that criterion in a way that the Evelina simply cannot. Both are world-class hospitals and both teams provide an excellent standard of care, but St George’s offers both parents and children a solution that truly meets their needs.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Before I call Karin Smyth, I should say that this debate has to end by 6.54 pm according to our new timetable. That includes a maximum of two minutes for a response to the debate.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher—it has been severely tested this afternoon, but you have done remarkably well in getting us all to the end of this important debate, particularly for local people, on the issue of children’s cancer. I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing it. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) all spoke on behalf of their constituents with the diligence that we would expect.
Receiving a cancer diagnosis is always distressing and deeply worrying for anyone; for a child and their family it can be particularly devastating. Watching a child go through that is a difficulty that most parents, fortunately, do not have to face, but my thoughts are with the many who do, who are being talked about today—particularly those who have lost a child to cancer. I pay tribute to the many families campaigning for good cancer care for children and young people.
Every year, 4,000 children and young people are diagnosed with cancer in the UK; sadly, it is still the biggest killer by disease of children and young people in our country. As we have heard this afternoon, the needs of children and young people with cancer are very different from those of adults. They can face real challenges in cancer care. It is crucial that they get the right treatment and family support. Often that treatment takes place in dedicated specialist treatment centres far from home: children can travel on average 350 miles to get their cancer treatment.
According to research by Young Lives vs Cancer, distressed and vulnerable children often travel across the country to receive care. As we have heard, the location of the centres is important for local people seeking the best care for their children. My city, Bristol, is home to the paediatric haematology/oncology programme, which serves the whole south-west region, working with shared care centres from Gloucestershire to Cornwall to ensure that children receive care as close to home as possible.
What should that care look like? We know that children receive the best care with early diagnosis and access to treatment from well-supported and trained staff, based on the latest research. Sadly, under this Conservative Government swathes of targets have not been met, and children are left waiting for a diagnosis when every second is vital. Those missed targets include the faster diagnosis standard, with three in every 10 patients waiting longer than 28 days for a diagnosis or to have cancer ruled out in 2022-23. Waiting lists have risen to a record high, with over 400,000 children awaiting consultant-led treatment. Prolonged waits have a detrimental impact not only on children’s health, but on their education and overall wellbeing. Although I welcome the children and young people cancer taskforce announced last month, without a properly functioning wider health system, children with cancer will continue to be vulnerable to those missed targets and delays in care.
The root of the crisis is the failure to provide the NHS with the staff it needs to treat patients on time. Indeed, the Royal College of Radiologists, which represents specialist paediatric radiologists, has said that after years of underinvestment, the workforce is stretched, causing backlogs and delay. That is why Labour is committed to providing the staff, the modern technology and the reform that are crucially needed to bring down those waits to safe levels. We will provide 2 million more appointments a year for planned surgery, diagnostics and out-patient care, and double the number of CT and MRI scanners, speeding up diagnosis and access to treatment for children.
We know and we have heard in the debate how important it is for people, and particularly for their families, to be confident that they will receive the right care in the right place. The guidelines produced by NHS England are very clear about the processes to be followed and the clinical case to be made for major service change. Indeed, that was much discussed in the Bill Committee for the Health and Care Act 2022, on which I sat. I look forward to hearing from the Minister—I will give her plenty of time—about any assurances that she can give to local people on the decision, and to the Members of Parliament who have spoken today on both the process and the substance of decision making in the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in what has been quite a drawn-out debate on such an important topic. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has raised an incredibly important issue. I hope she and all hon. Members accept that clinical assessment and knowledge are crucial to making vital decisions that affect children’s health at such a difficult time for them and their families.
I am responding to this debate on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), but I will endeavour to respond to each colleague and commit to writing where necessary. The debate has understandably stirred some strong emotions, because every colleague has had direct or indirect exposure to some of the questions it has raised. I am therefore grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, which demonstrate the huge importance to us all of getting the right outcome.
Each of us has helped a parent who has called our constituency offices seeking help at an incredibly difficult time. I want to assure everyone that each person in the Government, from the Prime Minister down, knows the importance of getting this right. That is why cancer services for children are an absolute priority. From my own work in the Start for Life programme, and in the few months I have been in my current role, I have seen a collective determination to ensure that children right across the country receive the highest possible standards of care. Children with cancer are the key priority.
The Royal Marsden Hospital and St George’s Hospital currently care for most of the children with cancer in south London and the south-east. I pay tribute to the work of those dedicated doctors and nurses who do everything they can to look after the children entrusted to their care, and I want to be clear that NHS England’s proposed changes do not reflect on the stellar service that those staff members have given and continue to give. Rather, the proposals follow advice from Professor Sir Mike Richards’ review, which made it a clinical requirement for cancer services to be placed in the same location as an intensive care unit in order to give critical life support to the most unwell children.
Sir Mike’s reasoning was simple. First, we need to end transfers between hospitals for very sick children, which add risks and stress for them, not to mention their families, during what is already an unimaginably difficult time. Secondly, while we will not compromise on safety, we need to ensure quality of care. As every Member will agree, children deserve to benefit from the very latest technology available. Thirdly, we need to ensure a seamless, joined-up approach.
NHS England has listened to patients, parents and clinical experts to hear how we might best improve their care. The NHS England process has been rigorous, and it has been immensely important for all those patients, parents and specialists to put forward their own significant insights. Last year, NHS England carried out a 12-week public consultation on two options for the future location of the principal treatment centre for south London and much of the south-east: Evelina London Children’s Hospital and St George’s Hospital. Under both options, all radiotherapy for children with cancer would be at University College Hospital.
Both Evelina London and St George’s deliver outstanding-rated children’s healthcare. They also provide outstanding-rated education in their hospital schools. Both are capable of delivering a future principal treatment centre that meets our high standards. They are also both adept at listening to children, young people and their families to improve on the care they deliver.
The experience and expertise of specialists working side-by-side with intensive care and surgical teams will make a real difference: enabling children to get care where they need it, when they need it, on a specialist cancer ward; bringing down the number of children admitted to intensive care; making it easier for different specialist teams treating the same child to work closely together; improving care for children; upskilling the workforce and supporting new kinds of research. Importantly, it will also mean that the future cancer centre will be capable of offering the most innovative and cutting-edge treatments, which may bring precious new hope for children and their families.
The centre will build on the strengths of the existing service, including high-quality care by expert staff and access to clinical trials. It will be a family-friendly centre for children and young people, at the forefront of groundbreaking research and continuing the close relationship with the Institute of Cancer Research.
Munira Wilson
The Minister said a moment ago that the new centre will build on the service and the experience. The point that I and many Members have made is that St George’s has that experience. While the Evelina is brilliant in many paediatric specialisms, it does not have children’s cancer experience, so what will it build on? On the point about process, it was already predetermined, as I pointed out. It has been made clear in meetings we have had that a lot of the responses will not be taken into account unless there is new evidence. The views of children, their parents and clinicians are not being listened to in the consultation.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady on that point. The consultation has been open, with an open mind and following the best principles of open consultation. I think she is taking quite a liberty to suggest it is a foregone conclusion. I do not think she is correct in her belief. It is essential that clinicians can take all the inputs from those consultations to come to the right decision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford).
Sir Paul Beresford
Knowing quite a number of consultants at St George’s, if they heard that they were at a standstill position and not building on what they have now, they would be insulted.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will also take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord).
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Like several colleagues, I thank the existing hospitals for the amazing care that they have given over the years, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley: I do not think this decision is necessarily a no-brainer. We need to look at the final decision and report, and weigh up what is good and what is bad. Who knows what the final decision and its reasoning will be? I agree with the Minister that it has been a proper process. We should allow it to come to its conclusion very shortly, look at the evidence, and look at the decision in that light and with an open mind.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friends that the consultation is critical, that it has been an open consultation and that all views are being taken into account. I am grateful to them for supporting the process. As Members of Parliament and constituency representatives, we all want the best for our constituents, but in the case of clinical care, it is vital that those with specialist knowledge and understanding should be able to make such important decisions that will affect life and death outcomes for children.
The new centre will be a family-friendly centre forusb children and young people at the forefront of groundbreaking research, continuing a close relationship with the Institute of Cancer Research. The centre will lead joined-up working between different children’s cancer services so that children get proper access to care, wherever they live. Importantly, it will have many more services on site, reducing the need for some families to travel, which will be particularly helpful for children with complex needs and families that struggle to speak English.
I assure colleagues, and anyone who might be watching at home, that once the decision has been taken, there will be no sudden changes to how patients receive care. Of course, some families will naturally be worried about what the change might mean for their children. That is entirely normal, and NHS England will carefully involve every clinical team currently providing care, keeping parents and families closely updated at every stage. NHS England will encourage experienced staff to move to the future centre so that they can continue to provide a friendly and familiar face to the children they serve. No one from among the clinical staff will be made redundant in any future changes resulting directly from this decision. NHS England has met staff to listen to their views, and they assure me that that will continue.
The consultation heard from children, their carers, and families who have received the worst news. They have talked about their own experiences selflessly to try to help others. The consultation closed in December last year, and an independent research organisation published its findings in January. NHS England has taken into account every word of feedback and every inch of evidence to inform the decision-making process. NHS England leaders are meeting tomorrow to decide the future location of the centre. The meeting will be livestreamed so that everyone who is interested can hear the discussion and the decision.
In conclusion, wherever the future centre is placed, I am confident that tomorrow’s decision will offer the right outcome for our children and take all views into account.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
No, the hon. Lady will have her chance in a moment. Throughout this process, the guiding principle has always been safety, quality of care and the best outcomes for children with cancer, now and for the long term. The children and their families deserve nothing less.
Munira Wilson
I am sorry that the Minister would not give way again; I wanted to ask her a direct question, but I do not believe that she has the opportunity now to come back to me.
I start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this rather drawn-out debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I thought the clinical case that he made was forensic; he went into great detail in making the compelling case of why this service should be placed at St George’s, where it already exists and is being built upon. I did not quite understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), in which he suggested that I was insulting clinicians; I was merely explaining that it is already there and it is being built on.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley and the hon Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who is no longer in his place, laid out the huge research opportunity we have. The Minister talked about innovative therapies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton talked about CAR-T and all the other innovative therapies that they are already working on at St George’s. He also highlighted staffing concerns, and both he and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the cost implications of moving the service.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for highlighting the travel issues. I strongly agree with what they said, which came through very clearly. I want to repeat this again, because I think some Members have suggested that we are knocking the Evelina: everyone agrees that it is an outstanding children’s hospital. The point is that St George’s also has paediatric services that are recognised by the CQC as outstanding. The royal college of paediatric surgeons also recognises it as having some amazing specialities.
There is deep concern—not just from Members of Parliament and politicians, but from professional groups and local Healthwatch groups, as I mentioned in my opening remarks—that this consultation has not been transparent and fair and that the process has not been fair. I ask the Minister again: if the decision is made tomorrow by NHS England to move the service to the Evelina, will she urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to call this in and have it looked at once again by Ministers so that all the very compelling arguments we have heard today on the clinical case and, most importantly, the risk to children’s cancer care and other services are taken into account? The voices of children, parents, clinicians and patient groups must be heard, and I do not believe that they are being heard at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered children’s cancer care in the South East.
Written Statement
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Redress
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
As the House knows, the Post Office Horizon IT scandal that began in the late 1990s has had severe impacts on the lives of the postmasters affected.
Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 January, the Government have today introduced the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill. The Bill defines a clear set of criteria for those convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal, and individuals in scope will have their conviction quashed. This is to be followed by swift financial redress delivered by the Department for Business and Trade.
The Government also announced in January this year that they would offer optional fixed-sum payments of £75,000 to postmasters in the group litigation order. Today, the Government have announced that they will extend this policy to the Horizon shortfall scheme to ensure equal treatment across the schemes. Those who have already settled their claim below £75,000 will be offered a top-up to bring their total redress to this amount.
It is the Government’s priority to take swift action to ensure affected postmasters receive full and fair financial redress with little administrative burden. That is why the Government will ensure that no income tax, capital gains tax, national insurance contributions, corporation tax or inheritance tax is payable on compensation to be paid to postmasters whose convictions are overturned by the upcoming legislation or by those who benefit from a £75,000 fixed sum payment on the Horizon shortfall scheme.
The Government will legislate via secondary legislation to exempt these payments in due course.
[HCWS336]